Passive-avoidance learning in gerbils and rats.

Lippman, Louis G.; Galosy, Richard A.; Thompson, Richard

doi:10.1037/h0030221

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is thus clear that gerbils are inferior to rats in acquiring a passive avoidance response. This conclusion agrees with previous passive avoidance comparisons of these species using 24-h train-test intervals (Galvanni et ai, 1975;Walters & Abel, 1971) and using nonshock aversive stimulation (Lippman, Galosy, & Thompson, 1970).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…This was also suggested by Galvanni et al (1975) and Lippman et al (1970) to explain the relatively poor avoidance performance by gerbils in passive aVOidance situations. The findings of Experiments II and III support these assertions that gerbils exhibit a pronounced locomotor bias in avoidance situations.…”

Section: Experiments IVmentioning

confidence: 48%

“…Since previous comparisons of the behavior of rats and gerbils have employed Sprague-Dawley rats from Holtzman Company, Madison, Wisconsin (Galvanni et aI., 1975;Lippman et al, 1970;Walters & Abel, 1971), 12 male animals of this strain from Holtzman and 12 male Mongolian gerbils (Meriones unguiculatus) from Tumblebrook Farms, Brant Lake, New York, were used in the present study. The 9041y-{)ld rats weighed from 325-365 g and were housed individually in standard laboratory cages.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Avoidance differences between rats and gerbils

Osborne

Caul

Vanstrum

1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gerbils and rats learned equally well to discriminate the lighted, safe arm from the ul1:saf~ arm duri~g Y.maze avoidance trials, Gerbils, however, were inferior to rats in initiating this response In time to aVOId shock, Two subsequent experiments on passive avoidance did not support the interpretation ~f these data based on a greater incidence of shock·induced activity suppression in gerbils. In both experiments, gerbils required more shocks than rats to learn a staying response, indicating a pronounced locomotor response bias in gerbils that is not compatible with the required passive avoidance response. A four.th experiment, using a shuttlebox, found that the relative active avoidance performance by these species depends upon whether intertrial responses are permitted and punished. When they are, gerbils are inferior to rats, since their high level of locomotor responding is not compatible with the behavior required, i.e., staying during the intertrial interval and running during the CS·US interval. On the other hand, gerbils are not inferior when intertrial responses are prohibited, since their locomotor bias is not punished and is compatible with the required avoidance response.It was suggested by Walters and Abel (1971) that rats and Y·maze tests, The ordinal relationship among the perform passive avoidance better than gerbils while strains in avoidance performance was found to be the gerbils perform active avoidance better than rats. This same in both tasks, However, in the Y-maze all strains observation derives support from a number of compar· learned the brightness discrimination problem equally isons of these species in avoidance tasks. With regard welL This fact, plus the additional findings that the to active avoidance learning, gerbils were superior to better avoiding strains were more active in the shuttle· rats in barpress (Walters, Pearl, & Roger, 1963) and box between trials and showed more locomotor activity two.way shuttlebox (Ashe & McCain, 1972) avoidance dunng the CS·US interval III the Y·maze, supported tasks, In contrast, rats were superior to gerbils in passive a motivational interpretation of the data: Differences avoidance tasks using shock (Galvanni, Riddell, & in avoidance behavior between the strains were due to Foster, 1975;Walters & Abel, 1971) and nonshock strain differences in unconditioned response to shock averSIVe stimulatIOn (Lippman, Galosy, & Thompson, rather than to associative factors per se. Specifically, 1970). Recently, Galvanni et al. (1975) have proVided poor avoidance in two strains of rats was determined eVidence that these species differences in passive avoid-by a marked degree of shock-induced behavioral supance are attributable to a greater tendency for explora· pression which prevented the performance of the tion III gerbils than in rats. required active-avoidance response, whereas superior The present series of studies compared these species avoidance was related to the absence of this incomfurther 111 both active and paSSIve avoidance tasks III patible ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Experiments IVmentioning

confidence: 48%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Avoidance differences between rats and gerbils

Osborne

Caul

Vanstrum

1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The gerbil seems to perform fairly well in shock-motivated tasks such as two-way shuttle avoidance (Powell & Peck, 1969), Sidman avoidance (Powell & Peck, 1969), and passive avoidance . (Lippman, Galosy, & Thompson, 1970;Walters & Abel, 1971), even though rate of acquisition in these tasks may be slower than that observed for the rat. These performance deficits are probably not indicative of a lack of learning ability since Blass and Rollin (1969) have demonstrated, with a miniaturized Wisconsin General Test Apparatus, that the gerbil's performance on object-discrimination learning sets is only slightly below that observed for the cat.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Conditioned suppression in the gerbil

Frey

Eng

Gavinf

1972

Behav. Res. Meth. & Instru.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Treatments which reduce the overall level of fear should also reduce or prevent the Kamin effect. Handling habituation or gentling is frequently used to facilitate the acquisition of avoidance responses in rats by, apparently, reducing the level of fear and interfering responses (Lippman, Galosy, & Thompson, 1970). The present experiment was designed to test the hypotheses that habituation to handling will facilitate acquisition of an avoidance response and prevent the Kamin effect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%