The acquisition of a running response as a function of odor buildup, squad rotation, and introduction of naive subjects

Abstract

A three-phase experiment was conducted in which rats received a double-alternation schedule of reward and nonreward. During Phase 1, the baseline period, double-alternation behavior was displayed earlier and more strongly by subjects run last in the daily sequence. This finding suggests that both reward and nonreward odor cues are cumulative over subjects. During Phase 2, a subject-rotation procedure was initiated; that is, each day the last subject in the previous day's running sequence was moved to the first position in the sequence, etc. Rotation to the first position in the group led to an immediate disruption of responding. During Phase 3, two naive rats were inserted at the beginning of the running sequence and two at the end. The results, which showed that the naive animals placed at the end of the sequence acquired the patterning response much faster than those placed in the beginning positions, are interpreted as reflecting preparedness to respond to such intensified odors.

Extending the generality of the odor hypothesis: Double-alternation responding in the wood rat (Neotoma floridana osagensis)

“…Thus, the statistical analyses corroborate the graphical impression (see Figure 1) that appropriate double-alternation patterning was developed only by Subjects 5 and 6. These results are in agreement with the contention (e.g., Prytula et al, 1981) that odor cues accumulate and become more intense or potent as additional animals are run, and that several days of training are required for the subjects to associate the odor cues with the appropriate situation/behavior. Figure 2 shows the performance of the rotated animal (Subject 6) during Phase 1 (as last subject in the running in the vivarium and were maintained on ad-lib food and water until they were 90 days old.…”

“…To allow the use of previous data (e.g., Davis, Thomas, & Prytula, 1981;Ludvigson & Sytsma, 1967;Prytula & Davis, 1974, 1976Prytula et al, 1981) as a reference point, the animals were trained under a daily eight-trial double-alternation schedule (i.e., RRNNRRNN). Because only six subjects were available, two groups for separate testing under odor-maximizing and odor-minimizing conditions were impractical, and a three-phase, withinsubjects procedure was substituted.…”

“…& Voorhees, 1982;Davis, Whiteside, Bramlett, & Petersen, 1981;Ludvigson & Sytsma, 1967;Prytula, Davis, & Fanning, 1981), choice behavior in the T-maze (Morrison & Ludvigson, 1970), and appropriate responding under a random daily schedule of Rand N (Davis, Prytula, & Voorhees, 1979). Electrophysiological recordings of mitral cells in the rat's olfactory bulb have verified the existence of such proposed Rand N odors (Voorhees & Remley, 1981).…”

Reward and nonreward odor cues: The role of the harderian gland

“…Third, if removal of the harder ian gland interferes with the production of odor cues, then the pat-terned performance of the last 2 animals in Group H during Phase 2 should have been weaker than that of the first 2 Group H animals due to the dissipation of effective odor cues with the running of additional non-odor-producing harderianectomized animals. As these effects were not shown, the present data are better explained by an odoraccumulation view (see Prytula et al ., 1981), which suggests that Rand N odors accumulate as a function of the number of subjects tested.…”

“…squad of animals composed of separate groups (see PrytoIa, Davis, & Fanning, 1981) leads to several predictions. First, if a group of harderianectomized animals preceded a group of sham-operated controls, minimal, if any, odorbased patterning would be expected on the part of the first several animals in the sham-operated group; this would be due to a disruption in the odor source emanating from the preceding (harderianectomized) animals.…”