Genetic analysis of avoidance, maze, and wheel-running behaviors in the mouse.

Oliverio, Alberto; Castellano, Claudio; Messeri, Patrizia

doi:10.1037/h0032835

Cited by 111 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, jumping was the only open-field behavior not demonstrating significant additivity. The lack of additivity in open-field jumping was probably due to the absence of significant amounts of this behavior among the domestic stocks analyzed (Smith, 1972 (Bruell, 1964;Oliverio et al, 1972). The general lack of dominance or heterosis among the 15 behaviors tested corroborates Smith's (1972) conclusion that heterozygosity could account only partially for the differences in behaviors between wild and domestic mice.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

The inheritance of behavioral wildness in house mice (Mus musculus L.)

Smith

Connor

1974

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fourteen behavioral measures were ranked according to their ability to differentiate performances of a wild population of mice from three domestic inbred strains. These "wildness" rankings were then analyzed for their ability to predict genetic and Genotype by Environment interactions. Genetic parameters were derived from analysis of three inbred domestic strains and their three hybrid crosses via the diallel technique of genetic analysis. Genotype by Environment interactions were assessed both as mean differences in stock performances resulting from rearing in a laboratory vs naturalistic environment and as differences in environmental variability within stock genotypes. Behavioral characters ranking high on "wildness" failed to demonstrate any unitary pattern of Genotype by Environment interactions. The diallel genetic analysis revealed many examples of additive variation but relatively few examples of dominant variation. An extremely wide range of interactions occurred between genotype and rearing environments, with "wildness" and "developmental homeostasis" concepts both failing to account for all the observed interactions.Since the origin of behavioral psychology as an independent discipline, many studies have attempted to define "wildness" and determine the nature of its inheritance (

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

The inheritance of behavioral wildness in house mice (Mus musculus L.)

Smith

Connor

1974

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Strain, rank orders were completely inverted for the two procedures. Pharmacological manipulations suggested that activity or "kinetic drive" differences were more important than any differences in general learning ability.Resolution of these seemingly divergent findings has been made possible by the recent work of Oliverio et al (1971) mentioned above. They calculated genetic correlations between shuttle avoidance learning, Lashley III maze learning, and wheel running activity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…It should be noted, however, that many values greater than 30% were obtained, which signifies a very substantial effect as judged by results from other areas of behavioral research. Oliverio, Castellano, and Messeri (1971) have presented the only calculations of C.G.D. for a learning phenotype.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic experiments with animal learning: A critical review

Wahłsten

1972

Behavioral Biology

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The basic patterns of inheritance of learning ability in animals have been delineated. Summaries of strain differences in learning rate, responses to selective breeding for learning, heritabilities of learning phenotypes, and heterosis and overdominance are presented. In addition, the patterns of inheritance are shown to vary with the early environment.The causes of genetic differences have received much attention, but much of the research is inconclusive. Both general learning ability and task-specific abilities are important, but their relative importance is not known for most learning tasks. Strain differences have been found to vary widely in response to variations in stimulus parameters, motivational levels, temporal spacing of trials, and pharmacological manipulations. However, in only a few cases have strain differences in learning actually been shown to be attributable to differences in sensory capacities, motivation, memory or activity levels. The physiological bases for differences are totally unknown. The pathways of gene action on learning also await discovery.Although some researchers have claimed to study the adaptive value of learning, their exclusive utilization of laboratory populations precludes meaningful interpretation of their results.Several methodological shortcomings of various experiments are considered, and important areas for future research are suggested. Article:Learning is a phenotype which has engaged the interests of numerous researchers seeking genetic bases for behavioral differences. In fact, much of the earliest research identifiable as behavior genetics dealt with some aspect of learning in animals (Bagg, 1916;Yerkes, 1916;Tolman, 1924). Ensuing experimentation was performed primarily by psychologists using genetically ill-defined populations. The rather recent appearance of standardized inbred mouse strains with widespread availability has led to renewed interest in the genetic analysis of learning, as well as other phenotypes. Several sophisticated quantitative genetic tools are now readily available for the study of learning. Examples of the application to learning research of selective breeding, the classical cross, the diallel cross, sib analysis, parent-offspring regression, and single-gene analysis have appeared recently.A central motive for compiling the present review is the author's opinion that the increase in genetic sophistication has not been paralleled by a similar growth in the sophistication of measures of learning. In many studies it appears that learning was selected as a phenotype of convenience and general interest.Similarly, the questions about learning investigated have tended to be simplistic and of little interest to those concerned with the nature of the learning process itself. Many recent studies have raised issues that were presented in the earliest research and therefore have contributed little to progress in the area. This is an unfortunate situation in view of the potential power of genetic techniques to answer important questions abou...

show abstract

“…However, several studies have addressed this question. In general, a variety of techniques, including full-sib, half-sib correlations, parent-offspring regression, diallel analyses, and the triple-cross test, have given heritability estimates of approximately 0.5 (Collins, 1964;Hewitt, Fulker, & Broadhurst, 1981;Oliverio, Castellano, & Messeri, 1972;Oliverio, Eleftheriou, & Bailey, 1973;Royce, Yeudall, & Poley, 1973;Wilcock & Fulker, 1973). There is less agreement as to whether there is single-gene or polygenic control of the avoidance response.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoidance, classical, and pseudoconditioning as a function of species-specific defense reactions in high- and low-avoider rat strains

Bond

1984

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats of the Australian High Avoider (AHA) and Australian Low Avoider (ALA) strains and their reciprocal crosses were exposed to 50 trials of one of three shuttlebox procedures. The avoidance group received pairings of a tone and shock. If the animals shuttled during the tone, they avoided the shock. If they waited until the shock came on, they could then escape it. The classical group received pairings of the tone and a brief inescapable shock. If they shuttled during the tone, the tone ceased and they immediately received the shock. If they did not shuttle, they received the brief shock at the termination of the tone. The pseudoconditioning group received the tone and the shock explicitly unpaired. If they shuttled during either the tone or the shock, the stimulus was terminated. There was no acquisition of anticipatory responding under the pseudoconditioning procedure. All groups evidenced an increase in anticipatory responding over trials under the classical procedure. The ARAs acquired the response faster and reached a higher asymptote than did the ALAs. Performance of the two reciprocal crosses fell in between. A similar pattern was observed under the avoidance procedure, albeit at slightly higher response levels. Subsequent studies established that the AHAs acquired a one-way avoidance response quickly, but were impaired on a passive avoidance task, whereas the reverse was the case for the ALAs. The reciprocal crosses were proficient at both tasks. These results suggest that shuttlebox avoidance is largely accounted for by classical conditioning of the predominant defensive response. When that response is compatible with performance on the task, acquisition is rapid (ARAs), and when it is not, acquisition is slow (ALAs).

show abstract

Genetic analysis of avoidance, maze, and wheel-running behaviors in the mouse.

Cited by 111 publications

References 27 publications

The inheritance of behavioral wildness in house mice (Mus musculus L.)

The inheritance of behavioral wildness in house mice (Mus musculus L.)

Genetic experiments with animal learning: A critical review

Avoidance, classical, and pseudoconditioning as a function of species-specific defense reactions in high- and low-avoider rat strains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About