Social interaction between drugged and undrugged rats

File, Sandra E.; Pope, J. H.

doi:10.3758/bf03199167

Cited by 28 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The increased social interaction in the singly‐housed rats confirmed earlier findings on the effects of social isolation in adulthood ( File & Pope, 1974 ; Niesink & Van Ree, 1982 ; Varlinskaya et al ., 1999 ), and since weaning ( Wongwitdecha & Marsden, 1996 ). The baseline scores of the singly‐housed rats were very similar to those found in previous studies ( File et al ., 1998 ; Irvine et al ., 1999 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Social isolation modifies nicotine's effects in animal tests of anxiety

Cheeta¹,

Irvine²,

File³

2001

British J Pharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1 These experiments determined whether the housing conditions of rats in¯uenced the e ects of nicotine in two animal tests of anxiety, social interaction and elevated plus-maze tests. 2 In animals housed singly for 7 days, (7)nicotine (0.025 mg kg 71 s.c.) was ine ective, but 0.05, 0.1 and 0.25 mg kg 71 (s.c.) signi®cantly increased the time spent in social interaction, without changing locomotor activity, thus indicating anxiolytic actions. (7)Nicotine (0.45 mg kg 71 s.c.) signi®cantly reduced social interaction, indicating an anxiogenic e ect. 3 However, in group-housed animals, (7)nicotine (0.025 mg kg 71 s.c.) had a signi®cant anxiolytic e ect in the social interaction test, but 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.25 and 0.45 mg kg 71 were ine ective. (7)Nicotine (1 mg kg 71 ) reduced motor activity and social interaction in the group-housed animals. 4 In the elevated plus-maze, the time-course and the dose-response curve to nicotine were investigated. In both singly-and group-housed rats, (7) nicotine (0.1 ± 0.45 mg kg 71 s.c.) decreased the per cent entries into, and per cent time spent on, the open arms, indicating anxiogenic e ects. 5 The housing condition in¯uenced the time course, with signi®cant e ects at 5 and 30 min after injection in group-housed rats, and signi®cant e ects at 30 and 60 min in singly-housed rats. 6 In the social interaction test there was no di erence in the scores of the ®rst and last rats removed from group cages, whereas the order of removal from the cages did a ect the scores in the elevated plus-maze. 7 These results provide further evidence that the two animal tests model distinct states of anxiety, and show how social isolation powerfully modi®es both anxiolytic and anxiogenic e ects of nicotine.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Social isolation modifies nicotine's effects in animal tests of anxiety

Cheeta¹,

Irvine²,

File³

2001

British J Pharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If the deprivation of the young isolates was primarily social, we might expect to find that the quality of the rats' social interactions during the daily sessions influences their adult behavior. On the basis of previous work on the effects of drugs upon social behavior, we selected 2 drugs which alter social interactions: amphetamine (Silverman, 1966), which reduces all social interaction, and chlorpromazine (File & Pope, 1974), which reduces active interactions without affecting total bodily contact.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brief periods of socialization and later behavior in the rat

Einon

Morgan

Kibbler

1978

Developmental Psychobiology

202

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Juvenile rats were allowed short daily periods of social contact to see if this would reduce the known effects of isolation rearing upon habituation of locomotor activity and object contact in the open field. Animals totally deprived of social experience (ISOL) were slower to habituate than animals living in small social groups (SOC). Rats allowed 1 hr of social contact (partial isolates, PI), but living otherwise in isolation, were intermediate between ISOL and SOC animals. In further experiments the quality of social interactions in the daily period was altered by drugging one of the partners, either with amphetamine or with chlorpormazine. In later tests in the open field, the rats that had interacted with amphetamine-injected or chlorpromazine-injected partners differed from PI animals in the direction of resembling complete isolates (ISOL); this was particularly true of those paired with amphetamine animals. Observation revealed that injection of 1 of the partners considerably altered social interactions in the pair. A further test showed that 1 hr of contact a day considerably alleviated the deleterious effects of isolation rearing upon response reversal. We conclude that normal development in the rat may depend upon the flexibility of behavior encouraged by the early social situation.Recent reports (Rosenzweig, 1971; suggest that some of the behavioral effects of keeping rats in impoverished conditions may be caused by social isolation prior to 50 days of age. One such behavior is the slow reversal of a previously learned discrimination. Rosenzweig found that rats that were isolated for 30 days from 25 days of age were slow to reverse a previously learned visual discrimination, but that reversal was not affected if isolation occurred after 60 days of age. Furthermore, he has reported that although environmental enrichment of social rats affected brain development it did not affect reversal, suggesting that it is specifically social factors that are implicated in t h s deficit. Similarly, we have found that hyperactivity and habituation deficits which are found following early isolation cannot be produced by isolation initiated after 45 days of age, nor can they be reversed in rats isolated between 25 and 45 days of age by subsequent housing in social groups for up to 90 days in press).

show abstract

“…When pairs of male rats are placed in a situation in which neither has established territory they engage in social interaction which includes a variety of behaviours (sniff, follow, walk over, crawl under, allogroom), but in which sexual (mount) and aggressive behaviours (kick, bite, box, wrestle) are infrequent (Latane, 1969;File & Pope, 1974;Whatson, Smart & Dobbing, 1976). It is important to distinguish between this active interaction and passive body contact between the rats, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to distinguish between this active interaction and passive body contact between the rats, i.e. the rats just sitting or lying with their bodies in contact, since the two are controlled by different factors (File & Pope, 1974). The maximum active interaction is found when the rats are tested in a box with which they are familiar and which is under a low level of illumination.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Social Interaction Be Used to Measure Anxiety?

File

Hyde

1978

British J Pharmacology

Self Cite

738

365

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brunswick Square, London WC1 N 1 AX 1 Pairs of male rats were placed in a test box for 10 min and the time they spent in active social interaction was scored. Maximum active interaction was found when the rats were tested under low light in a box with which they were familiar. When the light level was increased or when the box was unfamiliar active social interaction decreased. 2 Exploration (time spent sniffing objects) decreased in the same way in relation to test conditions as did social interaction. As these decreased, defecation, and freezing increased. 3 Anosmic controls showed that the decrease in social interaction across test conditions could not be attributed to olfactory changes in the partner. 4 Chlordiazepoxide (5 mg/kg) given chronically prevented or significantly reduced the decrease in social interaction that occurred in undrugged rats as the light level or the unfamiliarity of the test box was increased. Controls showed that this effect could not be entirely attributed to chlordiazepoxide acting selectively to increase low levels of responding. 5 The effect of chronic chlordiazepoxide contrasts with its action when given acutely; in the latter case it has only sedative effects. 6 Whether this test can be used as an animal model of anxiety is discussed and this test is compared with existing tests of anxiety.

show abstract

Social interaction between drugged and undrugged rats

Cited by 28 publications

References 11 publications

Social isolation modifies nicotine's effects in animal tests of anxiety

Social isolation modifies nicotine's effects in animal tests of anxiety

Brief periods of socialization and later behavior in the rat

Can Social Interaction Be Used to Measure Anxiety?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About