2008
DOI: 10.3922/j.psns.2008.1.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Preference for the light compartment of a light/dark cage does not affect rat exploratory behavior in the elevated plus-maze.

Abstract: The are few reports on the relationship between elevated plus-maze and effects of maintenance conditions in the days prior to the test. Previously, we have demonstrated that being forcibly in total dark or in light for four days does not alter exploratory behavior in the plus-maze. The present study aimed at recording illumination level preferences in rats using a box with light and dark compartments (or another with two light compartments) and the behavioral effect of this choice on the plus-maze. The rats al… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
5
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
2
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, experimental animals normally display obvious but not inter-supporting behaviors in different tests with the same logic and assumptions ( Ramos, 2008 ). Furthermore, even if the behavioral results are consistent with the expectation, they can still be alternatively explained ( Garcia et al, 2008 ). The limitations can be due to circular arguments embedded in a reductive logic.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 50%
“…However, experimental animals normally display obvious but not inter-supporting behaviors in different tests with the same logic and assumptions ( Ramos, 2008 ). Furthermore, even if the behavioral results are consistent with the expectation, they can still be alternatively explained ( Garcia et al, 2008 ). The limitations can be due to circular arguments embedded in a reductive logic.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 50%
“…However, experimental animals normally display obvious but not inter-supporting behaviors in different tests with the same logic and assumptions (Ramos, 2008). Furthermore, even if the behavioral results are consistent with the expectation, they can still be alternatively explained (Garcia et al, 2008). This ambiguity reaches deeply into the history of widely used behavioral tests and therefore have resulted in a considerable amount of inconclusive and seemingly paradoxical results, which are usually left for discussion or remain unreported (Carobrez and Bertoglio, 2005; Crusio, 2013; Engin and Treit, 2008; Ennaceur, 2014; Hascoët et al, 2001; Henriques-Alves and Queiroz, 2016; Kulesskaya and Voikar, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 50%
“…b) Possibility of acquiring LDB test data entirely by a computerized automaticdata acquisition system and to obtain the animal path trace for further evidence of animal activity in the apparatus: There are only a very few reports mentioning the use of real-time video tracking of animal activity in the LDB. In the majority of the reports, video recording was done only in the light chamber [19,24] and the path taken by each rat in LDB was rarely reported. In addition, computerized automatic data acquisition was also not found to be used in most of the recent reports [21, 39, Acta Biologica Hungarica 69, 2018 44].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%