The relative playfulness of juvenile Lewis and Fischer-344 rats

Siviy, Stephen M.; Love, Nicole J; DeCicco, Brian M; Giordano, Sara; Seifert, Tara L

doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2003.09.002

Cited by 66 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As noted above, differences between the two strains have also been reported for a host of behaviors, including (but not limited to) juvenile play (Siviy et al, 2003), maternal behavior (Gomez-Serrano et al, 2002), social responsiveness (Berton et al, 1997) and drug reactivity (Riley, Davis, & Roma, 2009) (for a review see Kosten & Ambrosio, 2002). The present data also add to the complexity of the reported differences in that the direction of these differences varies greatly.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

“…Consistent with these findings, F344 rats also develop schedule-induced polydipsia at a faster rate and display greater overall levels of this behavior at asymptote (see DeCarolis, Myracle, Erbach, Glowa, Flores, Riley et al, 2003). Interestingly, in other behavioral assays (both social and non-social), it is the LEW strain that expresses more robust behaviors, e.g., expression of juvenile play (Siviy et al, 2003) and maternal behavior (Gomez-Serrano et al, 2002). For instance, Siviy et al (2003) reported that juvenile F344 rats emitted fewer nape contacts and pins, were less likely to initiate playful activity Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…While the LEW strain emitted more nape contacts and pins and responded more often to a nape contact with a complete rotation, F344 animals were more likely to respond to nape contacts with an evasion; there was no difference in the probability of responding to nape contact with a partial rotation (Siviy et al, 2003). Differences in social behavior between the F344 and LEW strains are not limited to paired conspecific interactions (aggression and playfulness).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Specifically, Gomez-Serrano, Sternberg, and Riley (2002) measured various indices of maternal behavior (latency to first pup retrieved, latency to retrieve the entire litter, time spent crouching and the number of pups over which crouching occurred) in dams of the LEW and F344 strains and found that the LEW dams retrieved their first pup and their entire litter faster relative to the F344 strain. In addition, LEW animals spent more time crouching and crouched over significantly more pups than the F344 strain (Gomez-Serrano et al, 2002;Siviy et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…More recently, Siviy, Love, DeCicco, Giordano, and Seifert (2003) extended this analysis of strain differences in social behavior by assessing playfulness (indexed by frequency of nape contacts and pins, and the probability of responding to nape contacts with a partial rotation, a complete rotation or an evasion) in juvenile LEW and F344 animals. While the LEW strain emitted more nape contacts and pins and responded more often to a nape contact with a complete rotation, F344 animals were more likely to respond to nape contacts with an evasion; there was no difference in the probability of responding to nape contact with a partial rotation (Siviy et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The differential expression of male sexual behavior in the Lewis, Fischer and Sprague-Dawley rat strains

Hurwitz

Riley

2010

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several indices of sexual behavior were characterized for male rats of the Lewis (LEW), Sprague-Dawley (SD) and Fischer (F344) strains. Males were permitted access to a receptive female of their own strain for five 50-min sessions every fifth day. LEW males emitted longer latencies (first mount, intromission, ejaculation and postejaculatory interval) and lower frequencies (mounts, intromissions, ejaculations, intromission ratio) relative to F344 males, with the SD strain in general, lying intermediate. Following this assessment, males of each strain were randomly assigned to females of their own or another strain to ascertain whether differences were due to differential female receptivity. Although there were no significant differences during this phase indicative of differential receptivity, the sample size may preclude a definitive interpretation of such results. The data were discussed in the context of other behavioral differences between the strains and the possible neurobiological mechanisms underlying these differences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The differential expression of male sexual behavior in the Lewis, Fischer and Sprague-Dawley rat strains

Hurwitz

Riley

2010

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Measuring Play Fighting in Rats: A Multilayered Approach

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rough-and-tumble play or play fighting is an important experience in the juvenile period of many species of mammals, as it facilitates the development of social skills, and for some species, play fighting is retained into adulthood as a tool for assessing and managing social relationships. Laboratory rats have been a model species for studying the neurobiology of play fighting and its key developmental and social functions. However, play fighting interactions are complex, involving competition and cooperation; therefore, no single measure to quantify this behavior is able to capture all its facets. Therefore, in this paper, we present a multilayered framework for scoring all the relevant facets of play that can be affected by experimental manipulations and the logic of how to match what is measured with the question being asked.

show abstract

Development of play fighting in kindling‐prone (FAST) and kindling‐resistant (SLOW) rats: How does the retention of phenotypic juvenility affect the complexity of play?

Reinhart

Pellis

McIntyre

2004

Developmental Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats selectively bred for susceptibility to amygdala kindling (FAST) have been shown to retain neural and behavioral features of the juvenile phase into adulthood. In contrast, rats selectively bred for resistance to amygdala kindling (SLOW) are neurobehaviorally more typically adult. The development of play fighting in male and female rats of both selected lines was studied. Given the apparent association of juvenility and play often noted in the literature for mammals in general, it was predicted that the FAST rats should be more playful and be more likely to retain the juvenile tactics of play that lead to more prolonged and complex patterns of social contact. As expected, FAST rats initiated more playful attacks and were more likely to defend against attacks than SLOW rats as both juveniles and adults. Unexpectedly, however, both selected lines exhibited patterns of defense that reduced the likelihood of complex and prolonged social contact. Importantly, the two selected lines did so by very different means. The FAST rats did so by avoiding contact whereas the SLOW rats did so by responding in an adult-typical manner that blocks contact. That is, the FAST rats exaggerated the changes typically occurring at puberty whereas the SLOW rats, at all ages, responded in a more adult manner. These data suggest that the different components of play fighting do not change uniformly with changes in the neurobehavioral underpinnings of juvenility.

show abstract

The relative playfulness of juvenile Lewis and Fischer-344 rats

Cited by 66 publications

References 44 publications

The differential expression of male sexual behavior in the Lewis, Fischer and Sprague-Dawley rat strains

The differential expression of male sexual behavior in the Lewis, Fischer and Sprague-Dawley rat strains

Measuring Play Fighting in Rats: A Multilayered Approach

Development of play fighting in kindling‐prone (FAST) and kindling‐resistant (SLOW) rats: How does the retention of phenotypic juvenility affect the complexity of play?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About