Consummatory Successive Negative Contrast in Mongolian Gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus)

Pérez-Acosta, Andrés M.; Martínez, Gladys Stella; Corredor, Karen; Vargas-Irwin, Cristina; Pardo, Luisa Fernanda Méndez

doi:10.21500/20112084.2425

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It also allowed to characterize gerbils’ exploratory behavior during the step-down task, which consisted of suppression of digging and rearing responses, and increments in probing and jumping behavior. The wide range of responses displayed by gerbils during aversive procedures—perhaps beyond that observed in mice or rats—calls for resuming comparative efforts (e.g., Pérez-Acosta et al, 2016 ; Wang et al, 2017 ), and suggests its better potential for translational clinical studies. Of special interest is the probing behavior, which could be interpreted as risk assessment and has not been reported in other rodent species exposed to step-down and similar tasks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Mongolian gerbil emotional behavior: effects of two shock intensities and response-independent shocks during an extended inhibitory-avoidance task

Hurtado-Parrado

González-León

Arias-Higuera

et al. 2017

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite step-down inhibitory avoidance procedures that have been widely implemented in rats and mice to study learning and emotion phenomena, performance of other species in these tasks has received less attention. The case of the Mongolian gerbil is of relevance considering the discrepancies in the parameters of the step-down protocols implemented, especially the wide range of foot-shock intensities (i.e., 0.4–4.0 mA), and the lack of information on long-term performance, extinction effects, and behavioral patterning during these tasks. Experiment 1 aimed to (a) characterize gerbils’ acquisition, extinction, and steady-state performance during a multisession (i.e., extended) step-down protocol adapted for implementation in a commercially-available behavioral package (Video Fear Conditioning System—MED Associates Fairfax, VT, USA), and (b) compare gerbils’ performance in this task with two shock intensities – 0.5 vs. 1.0 mA—considered in the low-to-mid range. Results indicated that the 1.0 mA protocol produced more reliable and clear evidence of avoidance learning, extinction, and reacquisition in terms of increments in freezing and on-platform time as well as suppression of platform descent. Experiment 2 aimed to (a) assess whether an alternate protocol consisting of a random delivery of foot shocks could replicate the effects of Experiment 1 and (b) characterize gerbils’ exploratory behavior during the step-down task (jumping, digging, rearing, and probing). Random shocks did not reproduce the effects observed with the first protocol. The data also indicated that a change from random to response-dependent shocks affects (a) the length of each visit to the platform, but not the frequency of platform descends or freezing time, and (b) the patterns of exploratory behavior, namely, suppression of digging and rearing, as well as increments in probing and jumping. Overall, the study demonstrated the feasibility of the extended step-down protocol for studying steady performance, extinction, and reacquisition of avoidance behavior in gerbils, which could be easily implemented in a commercially available system. The observation that 1.0 mA shocks produced a clear and consistent avoidance behavior suggests that implementation of higher intensities is unnecessary for reproducing aversive-conditioning effects in this species. The observed patterning of freezing, platform descents, and exploratory responses produced by the change from random to periodic shocks may relate to the active defensive system of the gerbil. Of special interest is the probing behavior, which could be interpreted as risk assessment and has not been reported in other rodent species exposed to step-down and similar tasks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%