RUNNING‐WHEEL ACTIVITY AND AVOIDANCE IN THE MONGOLIAN GERBIL<sup>1</sup>

Powell, Robert; Peck, Stephen C.

doi:10.1901/jeab.1969.12-779

Cited by 35 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present findings apparently retlecl the fact that gerbils are more active (powell & Peck, 1969) and more exploratory (Glickman & Hartz, 1964) than rats. As GaIvarmi et al (1975) and Lippman et aI.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

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: 71%

Avoidance differences between rats and gerbils

Osborne

Caul

Vanstrum

1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Warm-up has been reported in both signalled avoidance (Hoffman, Fleshler, and Chorny, 1961) and unsignalled avoidance situations (Ulrich, Holz, and Azrin, 1964;Powell and Peck, 1969). Domesticated rats show this behavioral pattern indefinitely, regardless of their terminal performance during the preceding session.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Effect of Shock Intensity Upon Responding Under a Multiple‐avoidance Schedule

Powell

1970

J Exper Analysis Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of two shock intensities (1.00 and 2.00 mA) were studied in the acquisition, maintenance, and extinction of unsignalled avoidance by albino rats. Single and multiple avoidance schedules were employed, with shock intensity being the principal condition that differed between schedule components. The higher shock intensity was generally more effective in producing avoidance. Higher response rates and lower shock rates were observed under high-intensity shock when performance stabilized. When the multiple schedule was introduced, the six rats trained under a single shock intensity all showed poorer performance under the new shock intensity, whether it was higher or lower than the training intensity. Performance under the original shock intensity did not change substantially with the introduction of a different shock intensity in the other multiple schedule component. Performance under the new shock intensity showed gradual improvement with continued exposure to it. All of the rats showed persistent "warm-up", receiving approximately 40% of the total session shocks in the first one-sixth of the session. The degree of warm-up was unrelated to avoidance shock intensity.

show abstract

“…Values of the intensity-duration product could be selected to produce just about any degree of warm-up, from none to a marked amount of shock disproportionality. Powell and his colleagues (Powell, 1971(Powell, , 1972Powell and Mantor, 1970;Powell and Peck, 1969) have suggested that the warm-up phenomenon is specific to domesticated laboratory rodents. The present data suggest that studies of avoidance behavior with wild and domesticated rodents slhould be conducted while varying the intensity-duration product.…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This phenomenon has been called warm-up (Hoffman, Fleshler, and Chorney, 1961;Powell, 1971;Powell and Peck, 1969). In a signalled avoidance experiment, increases in shock voltage produced no stable changes in the shock disproportionality exhibited (Hoffman, et al, 1961).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

SHOCK INTENSITY AND DURATION INTERACTIONS ON FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR¹

Leander¹

1973

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shock intensities (1 to 4 mA) and shock durations (0.3 to 0.75 sec) were concurrently varied over a range commonly used in free-operant avoidance studies using a lever-press response. Response rates were a positive linear function of the log of the product of intensity times duration. Shock rates were a negative linear function of that log. The increase in response rates was primarily due to a selective increase in the conditional probability of making responses with long interresponse times. The disproportionality of receiving shocks early in the session (warm-up) was also a linear function of the log of the intensity-duration product, with increasing disproportionality as the value of the intensity-duration product was increased. Thus, with all measures of the avoidance perforlnance, shock intensity and shock duration combine in a multiplicative fashion to determine the avoidance performance.Shock-avoidance behavior has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a function of the slhock intensity used. In Sidman's (1953) freeoperant avoidance paradigm, increases in shock intensity over a range from 0.5 mA to 3.7 mA produced increases in the rates of responding by well-trained rats (Boren, Sidman, and Herrnstein, 1959). In that experiment, each lever depression postponed shock for 20 sec, but upon failure to avoid a shock, a response was required to terminate the shock.Thus, the duration of shock was controlled by the animal and was not constant across different intensity values. The average duration of shock at each intensity value (actually the average response latency upon shock onset) was an inverse function of shock intensity. Subsequiently, in studies with shock duration held constant, response rates have been shown to increase as a monotonic function of shock intensity (Powell, 1971 1970; Riess, 1970). Hayes and MacKinnon (1968) suggested that increases in shock duration had rate increasing effects similar to increases in shock intensity. Riess (1970) manipulated shock durations over a range from 0.05 to 0.3 sec while holding shock intensity constant at 0.5 mA. He found that response rates were a positive monotonic function of shock duration similar to the function obtained by increasing shock intensity at a constant shock duration. Riess did not manipulate both shock intensity and duration in the same experiment.

show abstract

RUNNING‐WHEEL ACTIVITY AND AVOIDANCE IN THE MONGOLIAN GERBIL¹

Cited by 35 publications

References 10 publications

Avoidance differences between rats and gerbils

Avoidance differences between rats and gerbils

The Effect of Shock Intensity Upon Responding Under a Multiple‐avoidance Schedule

SHOCK INTENSITY AND DURATION INTERACTIONS ON FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR¹

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

RUNNING‐WHEEL ACTIVITY AND AVOIDANCE IN THE MONGOLIAN GERBIL1

Cited by 35 publications

References 10 publications

Avoidance differences between rats and gerbils

Avoidance differences between rats and gerbils

The Effect of Shock Intensity Upon Responding Under a Multiple‐avoidance Schedule

SHOCK INTENSITY AND DURATION INTERACTIONS ON FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

RUNNING‐WHEEL ACTIVITY AND AVOIDANCE IN THE MONGOLIAN GERBIL¹

SHOCK INTENSITY AND DURATION INTERACTIONS ON FREE‐OPERANT AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR¹