The Effects of Prenatal Stress on Rat Offsprings' Learning Ability

Abstract

The present study (N = 30 female rats, 11 male rats) was conducted to determine the effects of prenatal stress on rat offsprings' learning ability. Pregnant mothers were stressed by exposure to an SD (light) which had been paired with shock. A second group of pregnant rats was handled an equivalent amount of time, and a third group received no treatment. The offspring of the three groups were tested on several learning tasks and the handled and stressed groups were found to be inferior to the control group on four of six learning measures.

Parental Depression: Animal Models of an Adverse Life Event

“…A long line of animal research has investigated the effects of prenatal stress on the developing offspring. Consistent with the limited human data, data from animal studies have suggested that stress during pregnancy can adversely affect offspring growth (183)(184)(185)(186)(187), learning ability (188)(189)(190)(191), and attainment of developmental milestones (192). Prenatal stress may also induce persistent behavioral aberrations.…”

Multigenerational prenatal stress increases the coherence of brain signaling among cortico–striatal–limbic circuits in adult rats

“…This pattern suggests that MGPNS rats are more willing to sample the reinforcement; the resultant additional training experience could overcome any impairments in signaling reflected by altered EEG signals. Although the majority of studies on the F1 generation following PNS have shown impaired learning on several learning paradigms, (Smith et al, 1981;Weller et al, 1988;Hayashi et al, 1998;Lemaire et al, 2000;Szuran et al, 2000;Gue et al, 2004), some have instead reported no effect (Kapoor et al, 2009) or improved performance (Fujioka et al, 2006;Yang et al, 2006). It is conceivable that the multifaceted effects of PNS on brain function have complex effects on behavior that may improve performance on some tasks.…”

Prenatal Stress and Risk for Psychopathology: Specific Effects or Induction of General Susceptibility?

“…J. Ward (1991) Impaired sexual function Holson et al (1995), Rhees & Fleming (1981), I. L. Ward (1972), I. L. Ward & Reed (1985) Reduced propensity for social interaction Takahashi, Haglin, & Kalin (1992) Increased locomotor response to novelty Deminière et al (1992) Learning ability Impairment of maze learning Archer & Blackman (1971), Grimm & Frieder (1987) Reversal of learning set Hayashi et al (1998), Smith et al (1981) No effect Vallee et al (1997) Motor development Decreased quality of righting reflex and of climbing Barlow et al (1978), Fride & Weinstock (1984), Grimm & Frieder (1987) ated with a higher incidence of developmental deficits (e.g., Dewey, Crawford, Creighton, & Sauve, 1999;Pharoah, Stevenson, Cooke, & Stevenson, 1994). Another explanation for the discrepancy in findings between Worlein and Sackett's (1995) and the Schneider (1992b) studies may be the tool they used to assess motor development in the offspring.…”