Mitral cell responses to the odors of reward and nonreward

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to determine if there were specific odor components in the goalbox of a straight alleyway following reward and nonreward trials. Behavioral research has convincingly demonstrated that, unless the goal box is cleaned between animals, a pattern of slow running on nonreward trials and fast running on reward trials soon develops. It has been proposed that the rat emits an odor in the goalbox following nonreward which allows following conspecifics to predict the upcoming goal event before reaching the goalbox. Behavioral research has been unable to determine if there are specific odors associated with reward and nonreward, or if there is only one odor of varying concentration, or if only one odor is present and the cue for the other condition is merely the absence of that odor. The results of this study strongly suggest that there are specific odors in the goalbox as a result of nonreward and reward. They further suggest that these "reward" and "nonreward" odors are different from the odors of food and urine, and that the "reward" and "nonreward" odors, although different, may possibly be similar in chemical structure.

Odor-based runway performance as a function of deprivation state, squad size, and subject-rotation procedures

“…At present , data in this research area (e.g., Pitt , Davis, & Brown, 1973) suggest that such odors are at least partially airborne. However, despite verification of R and N odors via single-cell recordings from mitral cells in the olfactory bulb (Voorhees & Remley, 1981) , their exact chemical structure and anatomical locus have yet to be determined.As suggested, when rats are tested under odormaximizing conditions, odors will theoretically accumulate as additional subjects are tested. This prediction was recently verified by Prytula, Davis, and Fanning (1981).…”

Different odors in rats from large and small rewards

“…The "food vs. no food" hypothesis elaborated by Voorhees and Remley (1981) as an alternative to a "frustration odor" interpretation, though not addressed to the Davis et al results, could be construed as compatible with them. They suggested that a rat may emit an "ethologically significant odor (pheromone) when encountering food, thereby signaling the location of food to conspecifics," and that "when encountering food stimuli ... , but no food, the rat emits a pheromone signaling 'food is no longer at this location' to conspecifics" (p. 169).…”

“…The expression "frustration odor" is probably best reserved for the former of these possibilities, but clearly the second possibility (perceived quantity discrepancy) is not ruled out by the present data, despite the use for convenience of the expression "frustration odor." The distinction between these two mechanisms, expressed by Voorhees and Remley (1981) in slightly different language, may be reflected in ethological functioning, that is, in the reactions of conspecifics to the emitted odors. Presumably, rather different effects might be expected, with that of a true frustration odor perhaps extending to general aggregation and social interaction, and that of a signal of relative food abundance restricted to foraging.…”

Extending the generality of the odor hypothesis: Double-alternation responding in the wood rat (Neotoma floridana osagensis)

“…Electrophysiological recordings of mitral cells in the rat's olfactory bulb have verified the existence of such proposed Rand N odors (Voorhees & Remley, 1981). Davis, Nash, Anderson, and Weaver (1985) have suggested the integration of this body of odor research within the context of optimal foraging theory (e.g., Charnov, 1976;Krebs, Houston, & Charnov, 1981;Mellgren, 1982;Mellgren, Misasi, & Brown, 1984).…”