2005
DOI: 10.1002/dev.20068
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A developmental comparison of trace and delay eyeblink conditioning in rats using matching interstimulus intervals

Abstract: The effects of conditioning paradigm and interstimulus interval (ISI) were evaluated in this study of the development of associative learning in rats. The acquisition of classical eyeblink conditioning (EBC) was examined in two paradigms (trace vs. delay), with three different ISIs (short, medium, or long) at two ages (postnatal Days 21-23 or 29-31). These data provide the first parametric analysis of ISI in developing animals trained with trace EBC procedures. Further, by comparing trace and delay EBC, it was… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In normally developing rats, the emergence of reliable short-delay ECC using a 280-ms ISI occurs between postnatal days (PD) 17-24 (Stanton, Freeman, & Skelton, 1992), and rates of acquisition in 24-day-old rats [measured as percentage of eyeblink conditioned responses (CRs)] is faster using the 280-ms ISI than using ISIs of 560, 1120, or 1190 ms (Freeman, Spencer, Skelton, & Stanton, 1993). The slower conditioning imparted by longer delay intervals in 24-day-old rats has been recently confirmed and also extended to 30-day-old (periadolescent) rats (Claflin, Garrett, & Buffington, 2005); that study also showed that regardless of ISI, the 30-day-old rats conditioned better than 24-day-olds. The evidence that short ISIs are optimal for ECC in rats confirms earlier finding in rabbits (Schneiderman & Gormezano, 1966).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 61%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In normally developing rats, the emergence of reliable short-delay ECC using a 280-ms ISI occurs between postnatal days (PD) 17-24 (Stanton, Freeman, & Skelton, 1992), and rates of acquisition in 24-day-old rats [measured as percentage of eyeblink conditioned responses (CRs)] is faster using the 280-ms ISI than using ISIs of 560, 1120, or 1190 ms (Freeman, Spencer, Skelton, & Stanton, 1993). The slower conditioning imparted by longer delay intervals in 24-day-old rats has been recently confirmed and also extended to 30-day-old (periadolescent) rats (Claflin, Garrett, & Buffington, 2005); that study also showed that regardless of ISI, the 30-day-old rats conditioned better than 24-day-olds. The evidence that short ISIs are optimal for ECC in rats confirms earlier finding in rabbits (Schneiderman & Gormezano, 1966).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 61%
“…The slower conditioning imparted by longer delay intervals in 24-day-old rats has been recently confirmed and also extended to 30-day-old (periadolescent) rats (Claflin, Garrett, & Buffington, 2005); that study also showed that regardless of ISI, the 30-day-old rats conditioned better than 24-day-olds. The evidence that short ISIs are optimal for ECC in rats confirms earlier finding in rabbits (Schneiderman & Gormezano, 1966).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 81%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The reason for analyzing the adaptive CR is that it represents a well-timed eyeblink response just prior to (i.e., 200 ms before) US onset, which is mediated by the cerebellar cortex in delay ECC (Ivkovich, Paczkowski, & Stanton, 2000; Perrett, Ruiz, & Mauk, 1993) or hippocampus in trace ECC (Ivkovich & Stanton, 2001; Moyer et al, 1990). This method of comparing the same adaptive CR window between different ECC procedures has been utilized in many different studies (e.g., see Claflin et al, 2005; Ivkovich & Stanton, 2001). Furthermore, adaptive CRs that were expressed (as measured by frequency and amplitude) during CS-alone trials were analyzed.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The timing of CRs for a single CS has been well characterized across CS-US intervals ranging from a few hundred milliseconds in eyeblink conditioning in several species (Smith 1968;Claflin et al 2005;Kehoe et al 2008Kehoe et al , 2009b) through tens of seconds for appetitive conditioning in rats and pigeons (Cheng and Roberts 1991;Church et al 1994;Ludvig et al 2007). In all cases, peak responding occurred around the time that the reinforcer had been presented, and the variability in peak responding has tended to be proportional to the stimulus-reinforcer interval (Gibbon 1977;Cheng and Roberts 1991;Church et al 1994; Lejeune and Wearden 2006;Kehoe et al 2009b).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%