Facilitation of discriminated lever-press avoidance by noncontingent shocks

Two experiments investigated the effect of presenting a brief noncontingent, unsignaled shock prior to warning-signal onset on discriminated lever-press avoidance behavior in rats. The main finding was that noncontingent shock delivered 2 sec but not 16 sec prior to warning-signal onset facilitated avoidance performance and learning. These results were predicted on the basis of shock-elicited response bursting which was expected to increase the operant level of the lever-press response at short shock-warning signal intervals. It was suggested that species-specific limitations on rats' lever-press avoidance are not unconditional, but rather can be overcome with environmental manipulations.     

Effects of associatively significant posttrial stimuli on learning and memory

Pigeons were trained on a delayed conditional discrimination in which the choice between two simultaneously presented stimuli depended on how the trial started. Choice of one of the stimuli was reinforced if the trial had been initiated by presentation of a food sample and choice of the other was reinforced if no sample had been presented. Subsequently, test trials were administered on which an associatively significant stimulus was presented during the retention interval. This manipulation was intended to modulate the short-term retention of information about the food sample. It was found that performance on food sample test trials was enhanced by presentation of an excitor for food, disrupted by presentation of an inhibitor for food and unaffected by presentation of an associatively neutral stimulus. The impact of these posttrial stimuli was also assessed on the ability of the food sample to serve as a reinforcer. This was done by recording the development of responding to a keylight that signalled the food sample on these test trials. Compared to the associatively neutral stimulus, both the excitor and the inhibitor interfered with the development of keypecking. These results are discussed with regard to the issue of how posttrial events modulate associative learning.     

Differential roles of hippocampal metabotropic glutamate receptors 1 and 5 in inhibitory avoidance learning

Group I metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGlu1 and 5) have been implicated in synaptic plasticity and learning and memory. However, much of our understanding of how these receptors in different brain regions contribute to distinct memory stages in different learning tasks remains incomplete. The present study investigated the effects of the mGlu5 receptor antagonist, 2-methyl-6-(phenylethynyl)-pyridine (MPEP), and mGlu1 receptor antagonist, (S)-(+)-alpha-amino-4-carboxy-2-methylbenzene-acetic acid (LY 367385) in the dorsal hippocampus on the consolidation and extinction of memory for inhibitory avoidance learning. Male, Sprague-Dawley rats were trained in a single-trial step-down inhibitory avoidance task. MPEP, LY 367385 or saline were infused bilaterally into the CA1 region immediately after training or immediately after the first retention test which was given 24h after training. Rats receiving MPEP (1.5 or 5.0 microg/side) or LY 367385 (0.7 or 2.0 microg/side) infusion exhibited a dose-dependent decrease in retention when tested 24h later. MPEP was ineffective while LY 367385 significantly attenuated extinction when injected after the first retention test using an extinction procedure. These findings indicate a selective participation of hippocampal group I mGlu receptors in memory processing in this task.     

One-trial-a-day avoidance learning

A one-trial-a-day discrete-trial avoidance conditioning procedure run for 30 consecutive days was compared with a massed-trial procedure where Ss received 30 consecutive trials within 1 day. The Ss in both groups were equated for time each S spent in the nonshock compartment of the apparatus, number of times the transport box carrying Ss was lifted out of the nonshock compartment, and the number of times each S was handled. The main difference between groups was the intersession trial length of 24 h for the one-trial-a-day Ss. Learning was rapid for both groups. The groups did not differ reliably on six acquisition indices. The methodological advantages of the one-trial-a-day procedure and its theoretical importance were discussed.     

Facilitation of inhibitory avoidance by hypertonic saline is reversed by a vasopressin and a nicotinic antagonist

Hypertonic saline (1 ml of 0.25, 0.50, and 1.00 M NaCl, ip) facilitated retention of a one-trial, step-through inhibitory avoidance task when injected into male Swiss mice 10 min after training, as indicated by retention performance 48 h later. A similar result was obtained after a subcutaneous injection of lysine vasopressin (LVP, 0.03 microgram/kg). Neither hypertonic saline nor LVP modified latencies to step-through of mice that had not received a footshock during training. The enhancement of retention produced both by hypertonic saline and by LVP was prevented by the vasopressin receptor antagonist AAVP (0.01 microgram/kg, sc) given after training, but 10 min before the treatments. The effect of hypertonic saline was also prevented by the central acting cholinergic nicotinic receptor antagonist mecamylamine (5 mg/kg, sc). On the contrary, neither hexamethonium (5 mg/kg, sc), a peripheral acting nicotinic receptor blocker, nor atropine (0.5 mg/kg, sc) or methylatropine (0.5 mg/kg, sc), two anticholinergic drugs which are known to act on cholinergic muscarinic receptors, prevented the effect of post-training hypertonic saline. These results suggest that a peripheral osmotic stimulus, probably through an endogenous release of vasopressin, may be behaviorally significant, and are consistent with the view that vasopressin may modulate the activity of central cholinergic nicotinic mechanisms which are critical for the behavioral change observed.     

Open field habituation learning is improved by nicotine and attenuated by mecamylamine administered posttrial into the nucleus accumbens

Using the paradigm of habituation learning in the open field, we tested the effects of unilateral microinjections of the agonist nicotine (8.0, 40.0, and 80.0 microg) and the nicotine receptor antagonist mecamylamine (0.1, 1.0, 10.0 microg) into the core of the nucleus accumbens. When injected posttrial, that is, immediately after the first exposure to the open field, nicotine dose-dependently enhanced behavioral habituation during the test on the following day, indicating a facilitation of memory, whereas mecamylamine impaired habituation at the highest dose, but not at the two lower doses. When injected 5 h after the learning trial, nicotine (40 microg) and mecamylamine (10 microg) impaired habituation on the subsequent day. A control experiment did not provide evidence for possible proactive effects of mecamylamine. These findings are discussed with respect to the possible behavioral functions of cholinergic, and especially nicotinic, mechanisms in the nucleus accumbens. They may also be relevant for understanding cholinergic-linked psychopathologies such as Alzheimer's disease, since the nucleus accumbens is one of the sites where cholinergic neurons are lost in this neurodegenerative disease.     

Facilitation of learning of a simultaneous discrimination between rotated patterns by bumblebees

The failure to discriminate between a pattern consisting of four orthogonal bars and the same pattern rotated by 45° has been interpreted in the literature as evidence against pictorial representations in honeybees. This study determines whether prior training can facilitate the discrimination. In Experiment 1, one group of bumblebees was trained with a rewarding spiral pattern (S+) vs. its unrewarding 45° rotation (S−). A second group was trained with two different patterns, the spiral (S+) and the chevron (S−). Both groups were then tested with the spiral and its rotation, both of which were unrewarding. The first group failed in the discrimination while the second succeeded. The same was true when the training period was defined by choice frequency instead of time (Experiment 2). The facilitation due to prior experience was pattern specific (Experiments 3 and 4). These results show perceptual learning in bumblebees and weaken the case against pictorial representations.