Alteration in footshock threshold by low-level septal brain stimulation

Breglio, Vincent; Anderson, D. Chris; Merrill, H. Kent

doi:10.1016/0031-9384(70)90268-4

Cited by 35 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whether the septal region is analgesic is problematic, and the literature is somewhat ambiguous. Thus Gardner and Malmo (1969) reported hyperalgesia to septal stimulation; Breglio, Anderson, and Merrill (1970) reported analgesia; and Mayer and Liebeskind (1974) reported mixed results. Obviously, if analgesia is produced by stimulation of the septum but not by stimulation of the MFB, this might result in the reduced effectiveness of footshock as a US.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditioned suppression of medial forebrain bundle and septal intracranial self-stimulation in the rat: Evidence for a fear-relief mechanism of the septum.

Grauer¹,

Thomas²

1982

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditioned suppression of medial forebrain bundle and septal intracranial self-stimulation in the rat: Evidence for a fear-relief mechanism of the septum.

Grauer¹,

Thomas²

1982

Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Similarly, Carder (1970) has reported that presenting lateral hypothalamic ICS during the visual warning signal of a discrete-trial avoidance task in both a shuttle box and running wheel increases the latency of the avoidance response. Superimposed positive ICS has also been found to reduce the unconditioned reactions to shock (Breglio, Anderson, & Merrill, 1970;Mayer, Wolfle, Akil, Carder, & Liebeskind, 1971), a hot plate (Yunger, Harvey, & Lorens, 1973), and limb pinching (Mayer et al, 1971), to decrease the suppressive effects of punishment (Goldstein, 1966;Kasper, 1964), and even to reduce gastric ulceration and hemorrhage under aversive stimulation (Freimark, 1973).…”

Section: Inhibition Of Aversive Responses By Appetitive Stimuli Summa...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibitory interactions between appetitive and aversive stimuli.

Dickinson

Pearce²

1977

Psychological Bulletin

190

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the behavioral evidence that a stimulus of a given affective value will exert a central inhibitory influence on responding maintained by stimuli of the opposite affective value. The effects of aversive stimuli on appetitively motivated behavior and of appetitive stimuli on aversively motivated behavior are considered separately. The evidence for a true inhibitory action is evaluated in terms of three behavioral criteria: the summation, retardation, and counterconditioning tests. Special attention is paid to the role of peripheral response interactions in determining the outcome of these tests. Although aversive stimuli meet all three criteria as inhibitors of appetitive behavior, the evidence that appetitive stimuli inhibit aversively motivated behavior is far less consistent. The strongest evidence for the inhibitory effect of appetitive stimuli comes from studies attempting to countercondition the reinforcing properties of aversive stimuli. It is concluded that this line of research supports general motivational theories that argue for the functional equivalence of excitors and inhibitors of opposite affective value.Any general theory of motivated behavior has to face the problem of the interaction between responses maintained by appetitive and aversive stimuli. During the last 15 years or so a number of theorists (e.g.

show abstract

“…Explanations for the differential suppression in terms of possible analgesic properties of ICS (Cox and Valenstein, 1965), or reduced pain threshold (Breglio, Anderson, and Merrill, 1970) were obviated by the procedure. The rats were not responding during shock, and ICS was not available as an analgesic during shock.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rats have typically failed to suppress responding during a conditioned stimulus (CS) with ICS as the reinforcer (Geller, 1970;Goldstein, 1966;McIntire, 1966). Merrill, Lott, and Bergen (1970) utilized procedural changes to discount several possible explanations for the attenuated suppression during ICS: neural disruption (Goldstein, 1966), blocked stimulus perception (Ball, 1967), resistance to distraction (McIntire, 1966), and analgesic effects (Breglio, Anderson, and Merrill, 1970). Russell (1975) reported that the intensity of the brain stimulating current was the determining factor, noting that response suppression was attenuated only with high-intensity ICS.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Food and Intracranial Stimulation Responding Suppressed With Regular‐interval Shock

Schmidt

McCaleb

Merrill

1977

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attenuation of conditioned suppression during intracranial stimulation was compared with that during food reinforcement. Response rates controlled by food and by brain stimulation were equalized on a multiple schedule by adjusting the stimulating current. When foot shock was delivered during timeout periods separating response components, responding for food was significantly more suppressed than responding for brain stimulation. When' components were shortened from 10 to 2 minutes, responding maintained by either food or brain stimulation showed a similar temporal pattern of suppression preceding each shock, but responding in the component involving food remained significantly more suppressed. Explanations for the attenuated suppression during brain stimulation based on neural disruption, stimulus blocking, and analgesic properties were questioned. The increased responding during brain stimulation seemed to reflect greater response strength relative to food reinforced responding.Key words: suppression, intracranial stimulation, shock, temporal discrimination, differential suppression, response strength, lever press, ratsResponse suppression during a brief conditioned stimulus paired with electric shock is the usual index of conditioned suppression (Estes and Skinner, 1941). Brady and Conrad (1960) noted a marked difference in suppression when intracranial stimulation (ICS) was compared to conventional reinforcers. Rats have typically failed to suppress responding during a conditioned stimulus (CS) with ICS as the reinforcer (Geller, 1970;Goldstein, 1966;McIntire, 1966). Merrill, Lott, and Bergen (1970) utilized procedural changes to discount several possible explanations for the attenuated suppression during ICS: neural disruption (Goldstein, 1966), blocked stimulus perception (Ball, 1967), resistance to distraction (McIntire, 1966), and analgesic effects (Breglio, Anderson, and Merrill, 1970). Russell (1975) reported that the intensity of the brain stimulating current was the determining factor, noting that response suppression was attenuated only with high-intensity ICS.The present study employed a variation of the traditional (Estes and Skinner, 1941) on the suppression of responding between, rather than during, the presentations of the CS and foot shock. A multiple schedule with alternating components of food and ICS reinforced responding was used, with presentation of CS and foot shock separating the components. The multiple schedule allowed a direct comparison of response suppression during food-and ICS-reinforced responding in the same animal. Nevin (1974) used a similar procedure to assess response strength under varying reinforcement conditions. He used multiple schedules with timeout periods, during which response-independent food deliveries were found to suppress component rates. Resistance to change in response rate was identified with response strength. Similarly, in the present study, differential response suppression could be identified with differential response strength for food-and ICS-reinf...

show abstract

Alteration in footshock threshold by low-level septal brain stimulation

Cited by 35 publications

References 10 publications

Conditioned suppression of medial forebrain bundle and septal intracranial self-stimulation in the rat: Evidence for a fear-relief mechanism of the septum.

Conditioned suppression of medial forebrain bundle and septal intracranial self-stimulation in the rat: Evidence for a fear-relief mechanism of the septum.

Inhibitory interactions between appetitive and aversive stimuli.

Food and Intracranial Stimulation Responding Suppressed With Regular‐interval Shock

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About