The Gerbil as a Subject in Behavioral Research

Walters, Gary C.; Pearl, Jack; Rogers, Judith V.

doi:10.2466/pr0.1963.12.2.315

Cited by 35 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since such responses are incompatible with behavior required in the active avoidance situation, avoidance learning in the rat generally proceeds rather slowly (Meyer et ai, 1960). On the other hand, guinea pigs and hamsters (Pearl, 1963), as well as gerbils (Walters, Pearl, & Rogers, 1963), have been found to acquire an active sh'1ck avoidance response such 'IS leverpressing with much greater facility than does the rat, although footshock elicits much of the same behavior in all of these species (Pearl, 1963 Psychon. Sci., 1971, Vol.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Passive avoidance learning in rats, mice, gerbils, and hamsters

Walters

Abel

1971

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acquisition of a passive avoidance response to electric shock was studied in hooded and albino rats, albino mice, gerbils, and hamsters. Rats acquired this response more rapidly than any of the other species. There were no differences in rate of acquisition between the two strains of rats or among the other three species. These results indicate that species-specific defense reactions may interact with the particular behavioral task in which the organism is studied.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Passive avoidance learning in rats, mice, gerbils, and hamsters

Walters

Abel

1971

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gerbils are inferior to rats in passive avoidance tasks (16,21), while they perform better than rats in active avoidance tasks (17). These facts suggest that species-specific behaviors, such as a greater motility in gerbils than in rats, interact with the performances on these tasks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…Learning and memory performances of ger bils have been studied mainly using avoidance responses (16,17,(20)(21)(22). Gerbils are inferior to rats in passive avoidance tasks (16,21), while they perform better than rats in active avoidance tasks (17).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, behavioral properties of gerbils appear to be in some cases quite different from those of rats. For example, gerbils are inferior to rats in passive avoidance tasks, while superior in conditioned avoidance tasks (16,17). Therefore, we tested first whether the delayed nonmatching to posi tion task is useful for studying working mem ory in gerbils as well as in rats.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Transient Cerebral Ischemia in Gerbils on Working Memory Performance in the Delayed Nonmatching to Position Task Using a T-Maze.

Imamura

Ohta

et al. 1991

Jpn.J.Pharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT-To examine the working memory performance, gerbils were tested in the delayed nonmatching to position task using a T-maze, and the effects of cerebral ischemia on the performance were examined. There were no significant differences between gerbils and rats in the alternation performance without delay and with the in terrun intervals ranging from 10 to 810 sec. These data suggest that this task is useful for assessing working memory in gerbils as well as in rats. Scopolamine (0.1 and 0.2 mg/kg) impaired the working memory performance in both species. Bilateral occlu sion of the common carotid arteries for 5 min severely impaired the choice accuracy in the gerbils 1 to 3 days after the operation. This memory impairment was observed even at the shortest interval. One month after the operation, partial behavioral recov ery was observed in the ischemic gerbils, in spite of a marked loss of the pyramidal cells in the hippocampus CA1 sector. These data indicate that the working memory performance is highly vulnerable to the cerebral ischemia and that the ischemic opera tion transiently but severely impairs the acquisition process of the working memory in gerbils.In recent years, an increasing number of studies have been performed on cerebral ischemia. Mongolian gerbils are well-known to develop reproducible morphologic damage in restricted brain regions by a simpler surgical operation (1), in comparison with the compa rable model using rats ref. 2). In addition, neurochemical and neuropathologi cal consequences of the forebrain ischemia have been well-elucidated in gerbils (1, 3, 4). For these reasons, gerbils have been the most commonly used animal for pharmacological evaluation of the protective effects of drugs against ischemia-induced injury. On the other hand, the behavioral consequences of the ischemic damage in these animals have been studied mainly using passive avoidance tasks (5, 6), which are relatively crude behavioral tests of memory. Brief bilateral occlusion of the common carotid arteries of gerbils can produce a marked loss of pyramidal cells in the hippocampus (1), the area that plays a critical role in working memory processes (7 13). However, little is known about the ischemia-induced changes in working memory in gerbils.In the present study, to evaluate working memory performance in gerbils, we employed

show abstract

“…The passive avoidance findings are in agreement with past comparisons of these species (e.g., Walters & Abel, 1971), but the active avoidance findings are not. Gerbils were previously reported to be superior to rats in barpress avoidance tasks (e.g., Walters et al, 1963), and as good as or better than rats in shuttlebox tasks (Ashe & McCain, 1972) in which intertrial responses were not punished.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoidance differences between rats and gerbils

Osborne

Caul

Vanstrum

1976

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gerbils and rats learned equally well to discriminate the lighted, safe arm from the ul1:saf~ arm duri~g Y.maze avoidance trials, Gerbils, however, were inferior to rats in initiating this response In time to aVOId shock, Two subsequent experiments on passive avoidance did not support the interpretation ~f these data based on a greater incidence of shock·induced activity suppression in gerbils. In both experiments, gerbils required more shocks than rats to learn a staying response, indicating a pronounced locomotor response bias in gerbils that is not compatible with the required passive avoidance response. A four.th experiment, using a shuttlebox, found that the relative active avoidance performance by these species depends upon whether intertrial responses are permitted and punished. When they are, gerbils are inferior to rats, since their high level of locomotor responding is not compatible with the behavior required, i.e., staying during the intertrial interval and running during the CS·US interval. On the other hand, gerbils are not inferior when intertrial responses are prohibited, since their locomotor bias is not punished and is compatible with the required avoidance response.It was suggested by Walters and Abel (1971) that rats and Y·maze tests, The ordinal relationship among the perform passive avoidance better than gerbils while strains in avoidance performance was found to be the gerbils perform active avoidance better than rats. This same in both tasks, However, in the Y-maze all strains observation derives support from a number of compar· learned the brightness discrimination problem equally isons of these species in avoidance tasks. With regard welL This fact, plus the additional findings that the to active avoidance learning, gerbils were superior to better avoiding strains were more active in the shuttle· rats in barpress (Walters, Pearl, & Roger, 1963) and box between trials and showed more locomotor activity two.way shuttlebox (Ashe & McCain, 1972) avoidance dunng the CS·US interval III the Y·maze, supported tasks, In contrast, rats were superior to gerbils in passive a motivational interpretation of the data: Differences avoidance tasks using shock (Galvanni, Riddell, & in avoidance behavior between the strains were due to Foster, 1975;Walters & Abel, 1971) and nonshock strain differences in unconditioned response to shock averSIVe stimulatIOn (Lippman, Galosy, & Thompson, rather than to associative factors per se. Specifically, 1970). Recently, Galvanni et al. (1975) have proVided poor avoidance in two strains of rats was determined eVidence that these species differences in passive avoid-by a marked degree of shock-induced behavioral supance are attributable to a greater tendency for explora· pression which prevented the performance of the tion III gerbils than in rats. required active-avoidance response, whereas superior The present series of studies compared these species avoidance was related to the absence of this incomfurther 111 both active and paSSIve avoidance tasks III patible ...

show abstract

The Gerbil as a Subject in Behavioral Research

Cited by 35 publications

References 5 publications

Passive avoidance learning in rats, mice, gerbils, and hamsters

Passive avoidance learning in rats, mice, gerbils, and hamsters

Effects of Transient Cerebral Ischemia in Gerbils on Working Memory Performance in the Delayed Nonmatching to Position Task Using a T-Maze.

Avoidance differences between rats and gerbils

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About