1992
DOI: 10.1016/s0166-4328(05)80285-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of early experience on callosal development and functional lateralization in pigmental BALB/c mice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
17
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
1
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Only one BALB/cWah1 mouse showed an abnormally small HC, whereas the HC was severely deficient in every 9XCA/Wah animal, including two in which there were almost no HC axons crossing the midline. There was a wide range of size of the CC in BALB/cWah1 mice, but this extreme size variation within BALB/cWah1 was not significantly related to fear conditioning (data not shown), which is consistent with the literature on behavioral sparing in CC agenesis (Schmidt et al, 1991;Bulman-Fleming et al, 1992;Wahlsten et al, 2001). As such, the focus of our analysis was on the difference between strains that arose from grossly different sizes of the HC.…”
Section: Commissural Anatomysupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Only one BALB/cWah1 mouse showed an abnormally small HC, whereas the HC was severely deficient in every 9XCA/Wah animal, including two in which there were almost no HC axons crossing the midline. There was a wide range of size of the CC in BALB/cWah1 mice, but this extreme size variation within BALB/cWah1 was not significantly related to fear conditioning (data not shown), which is consistent with the literature on behavioral sparing in CC agenesis (Schmidt et al, 1991;Bulman-Fleming et al, 1992;Wahlsten et al, 2001). As such, the focus of our analysis was on the difference between strains that arose from grossly different sizes of the HC.…”
Section: Commissural Anatomysupporting
confidence: 87%
“…This developmental variability within a genetically homogeneous strain provides a well controlled experiment of nature to assess the behavioral effects of an absent CC. Surprisingly, hereditary absence of the CC has little or no impact on a wide range of mouse behaviors (Schmidt et al, 1991;Bulman-Fleming et al, 1992;Wahlsten et al, 2001).…”
Section: Abstract: Hippocampal Commissure; Memory; Learning; Ltp; Fementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Typically, fewer than half the mice in inbred strains such as BALB/c and 129 have no CC [35], a condition termed incomplete penetrance, and this within-strain non-genetic variation provides an excellent test of CC function. No relation of CC size in these strains is apparent with paw preference scores [7,13,27], the speed of running on a wheel [3], or performance on several common behavioral tasks [17,34], although some indication exists that mouse strains with a high frequency of absent CC also show deficits on a notched balance beam [21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 and were observed reaching for flakes of rolled oat cereal until 50 reaches were recorded for each animal. (Details of the apparatus can be found in [14].) The internal diameter of the food tube for this session was 6.5 mm (narrow), the same as that used by Collins [8].…”
Section: Paw Preference Testing Sessionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Biddle's group [13] has also recently reported strain differences in RPE scores and our own independent reanalysis of the Signore et al data supports both a leftward population bias and strain differences in RPE 2 . The Collins test has been a very popular method for determining paw preference in mice; several groups of workers have employed this procedure to investigate the influences of various factors on mouse paw preference [14][15][16][17][18][19]11]. As a result of this popularity and of the recent results mentioned above, which suggest that the mouse model for human handedness may be even more relevant than was previously believed, it would seem important to investigate the parameters of the paw preference testing protocol.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%