1983
DOI: 10.1016/s0163-1047(83)91349-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Odor-aversion learning in neonate rat pups: the role of duration of exposure to an odor

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1985
1985
2006
2006

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Neonatal mice in which an odor CS was paired with an LiCl injection on P7 learned a conditioned aversion to the odor that persisted for up to 3 days (Alleva and Calamandrei, 1986); while these data demonstrate the capacity of neonatal mice to retain conditioned responses over multiple days, neonatal rats trained on P2 retained a similar odor association with LiCl injection for at least 8 days (Rudy and Cheatle, 1977). Hence, it is likely that outbred (CD-1, Swiss) mice do not retain conditioned odor responses as strongly as do rats under current experimental protocols, though the US modality (nutritive vs. tactile) may also contribute to observed differences among studies (Bouslama et al, 2005), as may the longer (1 h) periods of CS-US pairing utilized by Alleva and Calamandrei (1986) and the present study (Smith et al, 1983).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 56%
“…Neonatal mice in which an odor CS was paired with an LiCl injection on P7 learned a conditioned aversion to the odor that persisted for up to 3 days (Alleva and Calamandrei, 1986); while these data demonstrate the capacity of neonatal mice to retain conditioned responses over multiple days, neonatal rats trained on P2 retained a similar odor association with LiCl injection for at least 8 days (Rudy and Cheatle, 1977). Hence, it is likely that outbred (CD-1, Swiss) mice do not retain conditioned odor responses as strongly as do rats under current experimental protocols, though the US modality (nutritive vs. tactile) may also contribute to observed differences among studies (Bouslama et al, 2005), as may the longer (1 h) periods of CS-US pairing utilized by Alleva and Calamandrei (1986) and the present study (Smith et al, 1983).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 56%
“…Intertrial length (Gray et al, 1967) and the duration of CS/US intervals were examined by several authors Smith et al, 1983;Rudy and Cheatle, 1979;Gemberling et al, 1980). Rat pups younger than five to six days did not seem to show "long delayed learning," i.e., the capability to associate CS preexposure to US if they are separated by a long time interval.…”
Section: Conditions Under Which Csajs Pairing Occursmentioning
confidence: 99%