Some appetitive procedures for examining associative learning in the mouse: Implications for psychopathology

Bonardi, Charlotte; Bartle, Craig; Bowles, Kathryn H.; Pulford, Felicity de; Jennings, Dómhnall J.

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2010.03.047

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another possibility is that the order of the summation and retardation tests reduced the sensitivity of the retardation test. However, sequential summation and retardation tests have been used successfully in other studies ( Bonardi et al, 2010 ) and any test order effect would likely work against the positive retardation test findings for the 0-s delay groups. Regardless of whether or not the failure to pass the retardation test was due to a floor effect or reduced sensitivity, the fact that the groups trained with a 10-s US–CS interval did not show excitation in the retardation test rules out a potential non-specific account of inhibitory effects in these groups, suggesting that backward conditioning resulted in an inhibitory CS-US association.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mice were chosen as subjects for the study in order to develop behavioural procedures that may be used to take advantage of recent developments in genetic technology in mice for studying the neural basis of learning and memory. As noted by others ( Bonardi, Bartle, Bowles, de Pulford, & Jennings, 2010; Gonzalez, Welch, & Colwill, 2013 ), there are a large number of well-established behavioural procedures for studying aspects of learning and memory in rats, but as yet the number of effective procedures in mice is limited. Thus, development of behavioural procedures in mice will increase the scope of manipulations for examining the neural basis of cognition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, inhibitory backward conditioning has been shown successfully using appetitive procedures ( Delamater et al, 2003 ), and the inhibitory effects of backward conditioning have been suggested to contribute to trial spacing effects in Pavlovian conditioning ( Ewing, Larew, & Wagner, 1985 ) and discrimination learning ( Honey, 1996 ) procedures that have used food as the US. The present experiment used an appetitive procedure, in part, to test the generality of the US signalling and US–CS interval effects found in fear conditioning procedures, but also because appetitive procedures have particular advantages over aversive procedures ( Bonardi et al, 2010 ). For example, conditioning, in which shock is used as the CS, tends to be rapid compared to appetitive procedures, and may, in addition, result in strong context conditioning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effect of US signalling and the US–CS interval on backward conditioning in mice

Sanderson

Cuell

Bannerman

2014

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of US signalling and the US–CS interval in backward conditioning was assessed in mice. For one group of mice the presentation of food was signalled by a tone and for another group, food was unsignalled. For half of the mice, within each group, the presentation of food preceded a visual cue by 10 s. For the other half, food was presented at the start of the visual cue (0-s US–CS interval), resulting in simultaneous pairings of these events. A summation test and a subsequent retardation test were used to assess the inhibitory effects of backward conditioning in comparison to training with a non-reinforced visual cue that controlled for the possible effects of latent inhibition and conditioned inhibition caused as a consequence of differential conditioning. In the summation test unsignalled presentations of the US resulted in inhibition when the US–CS interval was 10 s, but not 0 s. Signalled presentations of the US resulted in inhibition, independent of the US–CS interval. In the retardation test, independent of US signalling, a US–CS interval of 10 s failed to result in inhibition, but an interval of 0 s resulted in greater conditioned responding to the backward CS than the control CS. A generalisation decrement account of the effect of signalling the US with a 0-s US–CS interval, which resulted in reduced responding in the summation test and faster acquisition in the retardation test, is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of US signalling and the US–CS interval on backward conditioning in mice

Sanderson

Cuell

Bannerman

2014

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, being much smaller than the rat, the mouse is less well able to tolerate the deprivation schedules that can be essential to motivate reliable response rates. However, excellent progress is nonetheless being made in adapting benchmark tests of learning for use in the mouse (Schmitt et al 2003(Schmitt et al , 2004Deacon 2006;Bonardi et al 2010). Mice remain the species of choice for studies of the effects of genetic modifications and cognitive effects have been clearly demonstrated in relation to genotype (Schmitt et al 2003(Schmitt et al , 2004.…”

Section: Replacementmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s Special about the Ethical Challenges of Studying Disorders with Altered Brain Activity?

Cassaday

2014

Ethical Issues in Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Where there is no viable alternative, studies of neuronal activity are conducted on animals. The use of animals, particularly for invasive studies of the brain, raises a number of ethical issues. Practical or normative ethics are enforced by legislation, in relation to the dominant welfare guidelines developed in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Guidelines have typically been devised to cover all areas of biomedical research using animals in general, and thus lack any specific focus on neuroscience studies at the level of the ethics, although details of the specific welfare recommendations are different for invasive studies of the brain. Ethically, there is no necessary distinction between neuroscience and other biomedical research in that the brain is a final common path for suffering, irrespective of whether this involves any direct experience of pain. One exception arises in the case of in vitro studies, which are normally considered as an acceptable replacement for in vivo studies. However, to the extent sentience is possible, maintaining central nervous system tissue outside the body naturally raises ethical questions. Perhaps the most intractable challenge to the ethical use of animals in order to model neuronal disorder is presented by the logical impasse in the argument that the animal is similar enough to justify the validity of the experimental model, but sufficiently different in sentience and capacity for suffering, for the necessary experimental procedures to be permissible.

show abstract

“…To take full advantage of the insights that genetically-modified mice might yield, however, requires the development of more sophisticated behavioral assays [3, 6]. To this end, we describe procedures for obtaining relatively rapid acquisition of a Pavlovian contextual biconditional discrimination (BCD) and an instrumental BCD in mice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pavlovian contextual and instrumental biconditional discrimination learning in mice

Gonzalez

Welch

Colwill

2013

Behavioural Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genetically-modified animal models are a powerful tool for investigating the link between neurological and behavioral changes and for the development of therapeutic interventions. Executive function deficits are symptomatic of many human clinical disorders but few tasks exist for studying executive functions in mice. To address this need, we describe procedures for establishing Pavlovian contextual and instrumental biconditional discriminations (BCDs) in C57BL/6J mice. In the first experiment, contextual cues disambiguated when two short duration stimulus targets would be followed by food pellets. In the second experiment, discrete visual cues signaled when lever press or nose poke responses would be continuously reinforced with food pellets. Mice learned both BCDs as evidenced by differential responding in each cue during training and, more critically, during extinction testing. The implications of these findings for using BCD tasks to analyze the neural substrates of executive processing in animal models are discussed.

show abstract

Some appetitive procedures for examining associative learning in the mouse: Implications for psychopathology

Cited by 11 publications

References 36 publications

The effect of US signalling and the US–CS interval on backward conditioning in mice

The effect of US signalling and the US–CS interval on backward conditioning in mice

What’s Special about the Ethical Challenges of Studying Disorders with Altered Brain Activity?

Pavlovian contextual and instrumental biconditional discrimination learning in mice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About