Spontaneous and shock-induced burying in two strains of rats

McKim, William A.; Lett, Bow Tong

doi:10.1016/s0163-1047(79)92894-2

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These same studies, however, also demonstrate that genetic variables do not operate in isolation either (e.g., the interaction of strain and retention interval shown here; the dependence of burying in gerbils on test-chamber shape demonstrated by Davis et aI., 1982; the interaction of subline and chamber length shown in Maggio & Harder, 1983; the shock-elicited burying difference between hooded and albino rats found by Tarte & Oberdieck, 1982, but not by McKim & Lett, 1979; the interaction of strain and habituation period also shown in these latter two studies). Thus, the results of the present experiment must be considered in light of the environmental context in which they were obtained.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…McKim and Lett (1979) found that Long-Evans hooded rats displayed more pres hock burying of a prod than did Sprague-Dawley albino rats. Tarte and Oberdieck (1982) found that Long-Evans hooded rats also spent more time burying a single shock rod than did Wistar albino rats, but only after habituation to the test chamber.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Dickson, & Tramill, 1981;Maggio & Harder, 1983;McKim & Lett, 1979;Tarte & Oberdieck, 1982;Treit, Terlecki, & Pinel, 1980;Whillans & Shettleworth, 1981). Furthermore, all but two (Maggio & Harder, 1983;Treit et al, 1980) compared only two genetically distinct groups.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Defensive burying by mice: Intraspecific genetic variation and retention

Harder

Maggio

1983

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genotypically based within-species differences in defensive burying were examined in 180 mice representing 15 inbred strains. Each mouse was tested twice in a cylindrical test chamber containing two similar prods. In the first test, one of the prods was electrified, whereas in the second test (24 h later), neither prod was. Although most strains selectively buried the shock prod in the first test (as determined by bedding-height-at-prod and position-of-highest-beddingpile criteria), some strains did not discriminate between the shock and dummy prods and still others displayed little prod-directed bedding displacement at all (thereby resembling a heterogeneous nonshocked control group). In general, burying tended to be somewhat reduced in the second test, but strain differences in retention were observed. Factors contributory to the observed differences among strains and the need for multiple measures of burying are discussed. Collectively, these findings indicate that intraspecific genetic variation, acting at multiple burying-relevant behavioral levels, can be an important determinant of the expression of the defensive-burying response in mice. 465The novel rodent behavior termed "defensive burying" by Pinel and Treit (1978) has been the focus of a considerable amount of research effort in the last few years. This behavior, first noted by Hudson (1950), is characterized by the persistent approach by some rodents to a localized, stationary source of aversive stimulation, and the covering of the source with materials found in the vicinity. A single exposure to the aversive stimulus is generally sufficient to initiate burying (Pinel, Treit, & Wilkie, 1980;Tarte & Oberdieck, 1982), and the behavior often continues despite additional exposures encountered in the process of burying (this lab). Two general types of procedure have been employed to study this behavior. One uses a single aversive stimulus, and comparisons are made with independent control groups. The other uses two stimuli differing to some extent in aversive, visual, spatial, or other properties. In this second situation, within-subject comparisons of behavior toward each stimulus are possible.Much 1983;Treit et al., 1980) compared only two genetically distinct groups. Although such small numbers of groups provide a very limited basis for assessing the influence of genetic differences on defensive burying, within-and/or between-species burying differences were demonstrated in each.Within-species strain comparisons of defensive burying have been reported only for rats (Rattus norvegicus) and mice (Mus museu/us). McKim and Lett (1979) found that Long-Evans hooded rats displayed more pres hock burying of a prod than did Sprague-Dawley albino rats. Tarte and Oberdieck (1982) found that Long-Evans hooded rats also spent more time burying a single shock rod than did Wistar albino rats, but only after habituation to the test chamber. Treit et al. (1980) reported, however, that in a two-prod situation Wistar rats spent more time burying than did Long-Evans r...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

mentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Defensive burying by mice: Intraspecific genetic variation and retention

Harder

Maggio

1983

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our finding is at variance with Pinel and Treit's (1979) observation that freezing and fleeing attempts rarely occurred in their studies. McKim and Lett (1979) have also reported relatively long latencies to burying.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The present finding is inconsistent with Treit's (1978, 1979) report that rats selectively buried the shock prod. This discrepancy could be due to differences in strain (see McKim & Lett, 1979), in the type of prods used, or in extraneous cues present, as well as to differences in the nature or intensity of shock. Pinel, Treit, and Wilkie (1980) have identified some of the stimulus attributes involved in prod discrimination.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defensive burying in the rat: A behavioral field analysis

Peacock

Wong

1982

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Time spent in various behaviors by the rat was recorded in a defensive burying paradigm. Experiment 1 revealed that rats spent more time burying the shock prod than a control prod and that doubling the size of the test chamber did not have a significant effect on the time spent in any behavior. In Experiment 2, the location of bedding material in a two-compartment test chamber was found to affect the occurrence of burying (both the shock and control prods) and burrowing behavior. Burying did not occur when bedding was not available in the shock compartment but was located in the escape compartment. Burrowing was more likely to occur when bedding was in both compartments than when it was in only one compartment. Immobility and escape latencies were shorter than burying latencies in all subjects. Burying was viewed as belonging to a second stage of defensive behavior. 103A new paradigm for the study of aversively motivated behavior has received considerable attention recently. Pinel and Treit (1978) found that rats shocked by one of two identical prods mounted on opposite walls of a test chamber returned to the shock prod and buried it using material available in the test chamber. Further investigation has indicated that the phenomenon, referred to as defensive burying, will occur over a variety of shock-test intervals (Pinel & Treit, 1978), with a variety of available materials (Pinel & , and following different sources of aversive stimulation (Terlecki, Pinel, & Treit, 1979;Wilkie, MacLennan, & Pinel, 1979). Thus, defensive burying appears to be a robust and reliable phenomenon. Treit (1978, 1979) argue that Bolles's (1970) hypothesis of species-specific defense reactions cannot readily account for defensive burying, which involves approach to the source of stimulation. According to Bolles (1970), whenever an aversive event occurs, an animal's behavioral repertoire is immediately restricted for a period of time to a narrow class of behavior. The animal will take flight, freeze, or threaten aggression. Although Treit (1978, 1979) maintained that the occurrence of freezing, fleeing, and aggressive behavior was rare in their studies, they have never reported systematic measures of any behavior other than burying. Since the mean time spent burying typically represents only a fraction of the total observation time in these studies, it is not clear what other behaviors occur in this situation.The relationship between defensive burying and other defense reactions is also brought into question by the results of a study by Pinel, Treit, Ladak, and MacLennan (1980), which indicated that the amount of burying appears to be influenced by the opportunity to perform competing defensive responses. It was found that increasing the opportunity for flight by increasing the size of the test chamber or by providing an escape compartment reduced but did not eliminate defensive burying.A striking feature of defensive burying reported by Pinel and Treit (1978) is the consistency with which rats selectively buried the shock prod. ...

show abstract