Sparing of a brightness habit in rats following visual decortication.

Braun, J. Jay; Meyer, Patricia M.; Meyer, Donald R.

doi:10.1037/h0022854

Cited by 70 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The problem is, however, that more recent data suggest that the postoperative behavioral deficit does not represent a loss of memory, a loss of the motivation to perform the preoperatively learned behavior, or a loss of the ability to utilize previously learned behaviors (LeVere & Davis, 1977;LeVere et aI., 1979;LeVere & Morlock, 1973, 1974. Also, the effect of amphetamine (Braun, Meyer, & Meyer, 1966;Ritchie, Meyer, & Meyer, 1976) and the effect of the RNA antimetabolite 8-azaguanine (Davis & both demonstrate that whatever the recovery process is, it is not a rerun of preoperative acquisition.…”

Section: Disruptions Optimization and The Nature Of The Behavioral mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Early research by Meyer, Horel, and Meyer (1963) indicated that the administration of amphetamine would reinstate visual placing in decorticate cats. These results were then extended by Braun et al (1966) in an investigation involving the postoperative recovery of a preoperatively learned two-choice brightness discrimination. The procedure was essentially a replication of Lashley's original paradigm but with the exception that some of the decorticate rats were postoperatively injected with amphetamine.…”

Section: Some Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By itself, this result may not be terribly surprising, since amphetamine could simply facilitate performance. However, Braun et al (1966) also demonstrated that the drug had no effect on original learning in visual decorticate rats. This, then, meant that the postoperative facilitatory effects of amphetamine depended upon the existence of an established behavior.…”

Section: Some Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Recovery of function after brain damage: A theory of the behavioral deficit

LeVere

1980

Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present discussion assumes that recovery of function is not an event but rather a process. When it occurs, this process bridges the gap between the occurrence of the brain injury and the reinstatement of a particular behavior disrupted by the brain injury. Accordingly, to understand the process of recovery of function, one must first appreciate the point from which the process begins, that is, the behavioral deficit. It is the thesis of the present discussion that one effect of neural injury is to cause the individual to shift behavioral control to neural systems not directly affected by the neurological insult. The behavioral deficit is then the result of the individual's attempting to learn new behaviors to compensate for those normally mediated by the damaged neural system. Recovery of function, on the other hand, represents a return to the neural system directly affected by the injury and the utilization of whatever of this system may be spared.

show abstract

Section: Disruptions Optimization and The Nature Of The Behavioral mentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Some Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Some Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recovery of function after brain damage: A theory of the behavioral deficit

LeVere

1980

Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lashley's interpretation of this result as a lesion-induced memory loss has not, however, enjoyed the same degree of agreement. For example, experiments with amphetamine (Braun, P. M. Meyer, & D. R. Meyer, 1966) have shown that this drug will facilitate the postoperative recovery, but not the original acquisition, of a brightness discrimination. Moreover, striate lesioned rats require a significantly greater number of trials to reestablish the reversal of a brightness discrimination that was learned preoperatively than they do when the reward contingencies are identical to the preoperatively learned behavior (LeVere & Morlock, 1973, 1974.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery of function after brain damage: On deposits to the memory bank

1984

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The availability of spared memories following neocortical injury has been shown to be related to the similarity of preoperative learning and postoperative recovery situations. In the present research we questioned whether the nature of the memory itself might also be an important determinant of the availability of spared memories following neocortical brain injury. It was found that the changes that interfere with the postoperative retrieval of memories of behaviors learned for a single motivational state do not interfere with the postoperative retrieval of memories of behaviors learned to satisfy two concurrent motivational states. Apparently, the nature of the memory is an important determinant of its availability following neocortical injury. Lashley's (1935) demonstration that posterior visual decortication will completely disrupt a preoperatively learned visual behavior has been replicated many times (see D. R. Meyer & P. M. Meyer, 1977). Lashley's interpretation of this result as a lesion-induced memory loss has not, however, enjoyed the same degree of agreement. For example, experiments with amphetamine (Braun, P. M. Meyer, & D. R. Meyer, 1966) have shown that this drug will facilitate the postoperative recovery, but not the original acquisition, of a brightness discrimination. Moreover, striate lesioned rats require a significantly greater number of trials to reestablish the reversal of a brightness discrimination that was learned preoperatively than they do when the reward contingencies are identical to the preoperatively learned behavior (LeVere & Morlock, 1973, 1974. These results, and others summarized by LeVere (1975), could occur only if the memories of the preoperatively learned behavior were spared even though the neocortically injured rat was initially unable to perform the behavior.These data have two important ramifications concerning recovery of function. First, as suggested over a decade ago by D. R. Meyer (1972), the recovery oflearned behaviors may be not so much a process of relearning what was lost but rather of remembering what was spared. Second, and because of this, the progress of the recovery process should be directly dependent upon the availability of spared memories.Unfortunately, we know very little about the parameters that determine the postoperative availability of spared memories except that a high degree of parity between the pre-and postoperative training situations is apparently required. For example, if either the extrinsic stimulus con- ditions (LeVere, Davis, & Fontaine, 1977) or the animal's intrinsic motivational state are changed between preoperative learning and postoperative recovery, then the reversal impairment noted by and Morlock (1973, 1974) does not occur. This lack of interference during postoperative reversal training clearly indicates that the spared memory was unavailable to the lesioned animal when the conditions of postoperative recovery were not the same as the conditions of preoperative learning. The present research used this finding to further...

show abstract

“…For example, there is a sudden reinstatement of visual placing when cats with extensive neocortical ablations are administered the drug amphetamine (Meyer, Horel, & Meyer, 1963). Likewise, amphetamine facilitates the postoperative recovery of a preoperatively learned brightness discrimination (Braun, Meyer, & Meyer, 1966). These are, of course, the more salient examples of the brain-injured subject's not utilizing all spared and potentially useful neural capacities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery of function after brain damage: Support for the compensation theory of the behavioral deficit

LeVere

1982

Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has recently been suggested that the behavioral deficit following brain injury is not exclusively the result of the neurological loss of the system components that had subserved the behavior in the normal animal. Rather, the behavioral deficit is viewed as the result of an underutilization of what is spared of the affected neural system. According to this view, an overt behavioral deficit occurs because the residual spared functioning of the damaged system is suppressed, masked, or dominated by the functioning of the neural systems that remain intact. The present series of studies supports this interpretation by demonstrating that prior to recovering a visual behavior, a visual decorticate rat, in contrast to a normal rat, will ignore visual cues and respond to nonvisual cues when attempting to avoid and/or escape mild footshock.

show abstract

Sparing of a brightness habit in rats following visual decortication.

Cited by 70 publications

References 5 publications

Recovery of function after brain damage: A theory of the behavioral deficit

Recovery of function after brain damage: A theory of the behavioral deficit

Recovery of function after brain damage: On deposits to the memory bank

Recovery of function after brain damage: Support for the compensation theory of the behavioral deficit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About