Evidence for rodent-common and species-typical limb and digit use in eating, derived from a comparative analysis of ten rodent species

Whishaw, Ian Q.; Sarna, Justyna R.; Pellis, Sergio M.

doi:10.1016/s0166-4328(97)00200-3

Cited by 121 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Observations of atypical or sporadic pasta handling behaviors were recorded, as shown in Figure 3. Most of these behaviors are similar to those previously described by Whishaw and colleagues (Whishaw & Coles, 1996;Whishaw et al, 1997;1998). Preliminary data in intact rats indicated that these behaviors, listed below, are not seen in the majority of trials and that they sometimes increase in frequency after injury.…”

Section: Atypical and Sporadicsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Whishaw and colleagues have previously described in detail how rats eat food pieces of various shapes and textures, including nuts, seeds, cereal, crickets and various types of pasta Ivanco et al, 1996;Whishaw and Coles, 1996;Whishaw et al, 1998). They have found that rats skillfully manipulate the food with movements of the forepaws, including fine digit movements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Vermicelli Handling Test: A simple quantitative measure of dexterous forepaw function in rats

Allred

Adkins

Woodlee

et al. 2008

Journal of Neuroscience Methods

126

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loss of function in the hands occurs with many brain disorders, but there are few measures of skillful forepaw use in rats available to model these impairments that are both sensitive and simple to administer. Whishaw and Coles (1996) previously described the dexterous manner in which rats manipulate food items with their paws, including thin pieces of pasta. We set out to develop a measure of this food handling behavior that would be quantitative, easy to administer, sensitive to the effects of damage to sensory and motor systems of the CNS and useful for identifying the side of lateralized impairments. When rats handle 7 cm lengths of vermicelli, they manipulate the pasta by repeatedly adjusting the forepaw hold on the pasta piece. As operationally defined, these adjustments can be easily identified and counted by an experimenter without specialized equipment. After unilateral sensorimotor cortex (SMC) lesions, transient middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) and striatal dopamine depleting (6-hydroxydopamine, 6-OHDA) lesions in adult rats, there were enduring reductions in adjustments made with the contralateral forepaw. Additional pasta handling characteristics distinguished between the lesion types. MCAO and 6-OHDA lesions increased the frequency of several identified atypical handling patterns. Severe dopamine depletion increased eating time and adjustments made with the ipsilateral forepaw. However, contralateral forepaw adjustment number most sensitively detected enduring impairments across lesion types. Because of its ease of administration and sensitivity to lateralized impairments in skilled forepaw use, this measure may be useful in rat models of upper extremity impairment.

show abstract

Section: Atypical and Sporadicsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Vermicelli Handling Test: A simple quantitative measure of dexterous forepaw function in rats

Allred

Adkins

Woodlee

et al. 2008

Journal of Neuroscience Methods

126

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The rats were given middle-to large-sized pieces of food and displayed typical foraging and eating behaviors (25,26). The general sequence consisted of the following: (i) foraging and location of food by sniffing, (ii) retrieval of food by mouth, (iii) transfer of food from mouth to forepaws, (iv) sitting back on haunches to eat, (v) manipulating the food with digits while eating, (vi) consumption of the last morsel of food with grounded forepaws, (vii) postprandial foraging by head scanning of the vicinity for more food, and (viii) facial and head grooming.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensory suppression during feeding

Foo

Mason

2005

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feeding is essential for survival, whereas withdrawal and escape reactions are fundamentally protective. These critical behaviors can compete for an animal's resources when an acutely painful stimulus affects the animal during feeding. One solution to the feeding-withdrawal conflict is to optimize feeding by suppressing pain. We examined whether rats continue to feed when challenged with a painful stimulus. During feeding, motor withdrawal responses to noxious paw heat either did not occur or were greatly delayed. To investigate the neural basis of sensory suppression accompanying feeding, we recorded from brainstem pain-modulatory neurons involved in the descending control of pain transmission. During feeding, pain-facilitatory ON cells were inhibited and pain-inhibitory OFF cells were excited. When a nonpainful somatosensory stimulus preactivated ON cells and preinhibited OFF cells, rats interrupted eating to react to painful stimuli. Inactivation of the brainstem region containing ON and OFF cells also blocked pain suppression during eating, demonstrating that brainstem pain-modulatory neurons suppress motor reactions to external stimulation during homeostatic behaviors.homeostasis ͉ nociceptive modulation ͉ pain ͉ raphe magnus ͉ ON and OFF cells B ehaviors such as eating, drinking, micturition, and defecation are essential for an organism's survival and are affected by exposure to aversive stimuli. Stress-induced eating and defecation occur across species and can be triggered by exposure to a painful stimulus (1-4). Yet, very little is known about the effects of feeding (eating and drinking), micturition, and defecation on pain sensitivity. In food-deprived animals, eating takes precedence over pain-motivated behaviors. During eating, fooddeprived cats were less likely to withdraw from acute noxious cutaneous heat (5), and food-deprived chickens showed fewer pain-motivated behaviors in response to chronic pain induced by sodium urate (6). However, responses to a painful stimulus are affected by the hunger͞satiation state (7), and it remains to be determined whether these analgesic effects can be generalized to animals that have been fed freely. Consequently, the aim of Experiment 1 was to examine whether the drive to satisfy hunger still overrides the need to avoid pain in non-food-deprived animals. We found that feeding suppressed pain in rats that were fed ad libitum.The suppression of pain during feeding indicates the activation of endogenous pain modulatory pathways. The brainstem ventromedial medulla (VMM) is a critical area in the descending control of pain and is the final common pathway from the brain to the spinal cord (8-11). The VMM modulates pain bidirectionally: its activation can produce either pain facilitation or pain inhibition (10-16). The pain-facilitatory and pain-inhibitory effects are thought to be mediated by two populations of neurons with opposing responses to noxious stimulation and morphine (17)(18)(19)(20). Cells activated by noxious stimulation are inhibited by opioids. These cel...

show abstract

“…First, it suggests that, particularly when non-human behavior patterns are to be compared with those of humans, the factor most likely to be different is the behavior itself. Analysis of behavior patterns has progressed substantially since the Beach statement was made, and methods of analyzing commonalities and differences within cross-species diversity in behavior are emerging [78,106]. Nonetheless it remains true that behavior alone, as particular types and patterning of movements, provides a much less precise analytic foundation than does a complete behavior paradigm (NIMH meeting It's Not Just Context' January, 1998), including eliciting stimuli, and, typical outcome; along with consideration of modulating organismic factors, of which genetic aspects are an important component.…”

Section: Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 25 (2001) 205±218mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mouse defensive behaviors: pharmacological and behavioral assays for anxiety and panic

Blanchard

Griebel

Blanchard

2001

Neuroscience &Amp; Biobehavioral Reviews

412

251

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The natural defensive behaviors of laboratory mice have been evaluated in both seminatural and highly structured situations; and characterized in terms of eliciting stimuli, response to pharmacological agents, behavior patterns, and outcome or effect on the social and physical environment. The defense patterns of laboratory mice and rats are generally similar, but mice show risk assessment on initial exposure to highly threatening stimuli while rats do not, while rats display alarm vocalizations, missing in mice. Quantitative differences in freezing and¯ight for laboratory mice and rats appear to largely re¯ect domestication effects, with wild mice and rats more similar to each other. This nexus of detailed within-species and comparative data on defense patterns makes it possible to reliably elicit speci®c defenses in mice or rats in an experimental context, providing well-validated assays of the natural defensive behaviors themselves, as opposed tò models' of defense.The mouse±rat comparisons indicate considerable cross-species generality for these defense patterns, as does a scattered but considerable literature on other mammalian species, generally involving ®eld studies and typically focusing on those aspects of defensive behavior that are visible at a distance, such as vigilance, or¯ight. Although potential homologies between normal mouse and human defense systems should ideally involve all four pattern components (stimulus, organismic factors, response characteristics, outcome), predictive validity in terms of response to drugs active against speci®c defensive psychopathology is the most extensively investigated of these. Flight, as measured in the Mouse Defense Test Battery shows a consistently appropriate response to panicolytic, panicogenic, and panic-neutral drugs, while some other predictive`panic models' (dPAG-stimulation; DMH-inhibition; possibly conditioned suppression of drinking paradigms) also elicit and (indirectly) measure behaviors potentially related to¯ight. Models unrelated to¯ight (e.g. ultrasonic vocalization to conditioned stimuli); or for which¯ight elements may a relatively minor contributor to the behavior measured (Elevated T-maze) are less predictive of panicolytic or panicogenic action. These ®ndings indicate that natural defensive behaviors provide a well-characterized pattern for analysis of effects of genetic or other physiological manipulations in the mouse, and may also serve as a model for analysis of defenserelated human psychopathology. q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. The recent explosion of genetic techniques and genetically modi®ed animals has greatly exacerbated the need for comprehensive, natural, models or assays of behavior that are relevant to mice, the mammalian species of choice for genetic research [25]; and has additionally focused attention on issues of construction and validation of these tests.Minimally, a behavioral model/assay should enable the reliable elicitation and measurement of a qualitatively consistent behavior pattern for ...

show abstract

Evidence for rodent-common and species-typical limb and digit use in eating, derived from a comparative analysis of ten rodent species

Cited by 121 publications

References 44 publications

The Vermicelli Handling Test: A simple quantitative measure of dexterous forepaw function in rats

The Vermicelli Handling Test: A simple quantitative measure of dexterous forepaw function in rats

Sensory suppression during feeding

Mouse defensive behaviors: pharmacological and behavioral assays for anxiety and panic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About