2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2021.10.023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Waving Through the Window: A Model of Volitional Social Interaction in Female Mice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

4
15
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
4
15
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We can speculate that the robust female social self-administration may be affiliative, rather than aggressive, when social interactions are volitional rather than forced. These data agree with recently published work using outbred CD1 female mice, where female mice readily lever press for sensory contact to female partner mice (Ramsey et al ., 2021). However, our data also caution against the use of purely barrier-based social self-administration procedures in males and females due to the potential incongruence in aggressive behavior between RI and SA testing.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…We can speculate that the robust female social self-administration may be affiliative, rather than aggressive, when social interactions are volitional rather than forced. These data agree with recently published work using outbred CD1 female mice, where female mice readily lever press for sensory contact to female partner mice (Ramsey et al ., 2021). However, our data also caution against the use of purely barrier-based social self-administration procedures in males and females due to the potential incongruence in aggressive behavior between RI and SA testing.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…Here, we used 24-h conditioning periods for the social and isolation contexts, the same as several recent reports 1 , 3 5 . Protocols with short, 15–30-min conditioning sessions have also been described, where one of the contexts was paired to interaction with an unfamiliar 11 , 12 or a familiar 13 juvenile or an age- and weight-matched partner. According to these reports, the rewarding effects of a brief interaction were also dependent on age and familiarity, and in contrast to this report, contact with unfamiliar mice resulted in significant place preference 11 , 12 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to these reports, the rewarding effects of a brief interaction were also dependent on age and familiarity, and in contrast to this report, contact with unfamiliar mice resulted in significant place preference 11 , 12 . The effects of the brief contact with a familiar conspecific were reported to be strain specific; CD1 female mice showed robust sCPP, while C57BL/6J did not 13 . There are essential differences in the approaches, and we would like to note that the long conditioning periods exclude potential effects of novelty, sociability or social memory, while short conditioning sessions emphasize them and could be argued to share similarities to the three-chamber social approach task 14 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here, we used 24-h conditioning periods for the social and isolation contexts, the same as several recent reports (Dölen et al, 2013; Hung et al, 2017; Nardou et al, 2019; Panksepp and Lahvis, 2007). Protocols with short, 15-30-minute conditioning sessions have also been described, where one of the contexts was paired to interaction with an unfamiliar (Bariselli et al, 2018; Kummer et al, 2014) or a familiar (Ramsey et al, 2021) juvenile or an age-and weight-matched partner. According to these reports, the rewarding effects of a brief interaction were also dependent on age and familiarity, and in contrast to this report, contact with unfamiliar mice resulted in significant place preference (Bariselli et al, 2018; Kummer et al, 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to these reports, the rewarding effects of a brief interaction were also dependent on age and familiarity, and in contrast to this report, contact with unfamiliar mice resulted in significant place preference (Bariselli et al, 2018; Kummer et al, 2014). The effects of the brief contact with a familiar conspecific were reported to be strain specific; CD1 female mice showed robust sCPP, while C57BL/6J did not (Ramsey et al, 2021). There are essential differences in the approaches, and we would like to note that the long conditioning periods exclude potential effects of novelty, sociability or social memory, while short conditioning sessions emphasize them and could be argued to share similarities to the three-chamber social approach task (Crawley, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%