The effects of drives conflicting with exploration on the problem-solving behavior of rats reared in free and restricted environments.

Abstract

and Bowling (1960) concluded that the characteristic mazesolving superiority of rats reared in a free environment was due, not to differences in intelligence or in maze-solving ability, but to differences in exploratory behavior. Using males and females reared in both free and restricted environments, they found, first of all, significant correlations between Hebb-Williams error-scores (Rabinovitch & Rosvold, 1951) and exploration measures even when several months intervened between these testings. Secondly, the restricted females were found to explore more than the other three groups, which did not differ among themselves, and this same relationship held for the Hebb-Williams error scores. And, finally, the adaptation and preliminary training series for the Hebb-Williams intelligence test (Rabinovitch & Rosvold, 1951), which was intended to minimize exploratory behavior, actually served to decrease exploration in the free groups while it increased exploration in the restricted groups. These findings, then, were interpreted as confirming Zimbardo & Montgomery's (1957) speculation, "... that perhaps the superiority in problemsolving ability for 5s with 'rich' early experience . . . may arise as a result of the relatively decreased novelty of the test situation for the free-environment 5s."It is certainly obvious, however, that this confirmation is based entirely upon the similarity between the error scores on the Hebb-Williams test and the exploratory measures taken. More weight could be given to this argument if exploratory behavior could be reduced in the restricted animals so that their performance on the Hebb-Williams test equaled that of the free animals. One method that can be used to reduce exploratory behavior is to establish a strong drive in conflict with the exploratory drive. Two such drives

Shifts in broadband power and alpha peak frequency observed during long-term isolation

“…Early studies in animal models have shown that isolation modulates the behavioral response towards novel stimuli and induces locomotor hyperactivity 44 and leads depletions of NA in diverse brain regions including the hippocampus 45 . Furthermore, sensory deprivation as induced through isolation adversely affects cognition in animals 46 . Although the direct mechanisms underlying deterioration in cognitive performance has not been fully elucidated, it is tempting to speculate that NA might be a driving mechanism due to its important role in the induction of long-term potentiation (LTP) to facilitate memory consolidation 47 .…”

Negative visuospatial priming in isolation-reared rats: Evidence of resistance to the disruptive effects of amphetamine

“…This learning deficit in isolates was likely due to poorer between-session learning (Amitai et al, 2014; Zeeb, Wong, & Winstanley, 2013). Learning and other cognitive deficits have been observed in isolates in a variety of other tasks, including tests of spatial and working memory (Einon, 1980; Woods, Fiske, & Ruckelshaus, 1961), reversal learning (Jones, Marsden, & Robbins, 1991; Krech, Rosenzweig, & Bennett, 1962; Li, Wu, & Li, 2007; Powell, et al, 2015; Schrijver, Pallier, Brown, & Wurbel, 2004), passive avoidance (Valzelli, 1973), recognition memory (Bianchi et al, 2006), and attentional set-shifting (Schrijver & Wurbel, 2001). …”

Effect of Environmental Enrichment on the Brain and on Learning and Cognition by Animals

“…The effects of environmental enrichment on the rats' learning are complicated by their different responses to novelty and their sensitivity to reinforcement and punishment. For example, the effects of enrichment on spatial learning are greater under conditions of high drive (24-36 h food deprivation) than low drive (12-14 h food deprivation) [46]. Under low drive, the isolated rats appear to show greater exploratory behavior than the enriched rats, whereas under high drive both groups show reduced exploratory behavior.…”