Conditioned and unconditioned defensive burying in the rat

When rats first encountered a mouse-trap or a flashbulb in a chamber to which they had been habituated, they buried it with bedding material from the floor of the chamber, whereas rats previously habituated to the trap or the flashbulb did not. Conversely, rats did not bury a stationary, wire-wrapped wooden prod or a length of polyethylene tubing, even on first encounter. However, almost every rat struck by the trap, shocked by the prod, exposed to an airblast from the tube, or to a flash of the bulb, buried the respective source of aversive stimulation with the bedding material, even when a comparable control object was present during conditioning and testing. Thus, the phenomenon of defensive burying is not restricted to situations in which neutral objects serve as the source of painful electric shock. Rats seem to enter the experimental environment with an already established tendency to bury some objects (unconditioned defensive burying) but not others, and they readily learn to selectively bury an object that has been the source of any one of a variety of aversive stimuli (conditioned defensive burying).     

Spared anterograde memory for shock-probe fear conditioning after inactivation of the amygdala

Previous studies have shown that amygdala lesions impair avoidance of an electrified probe. This finding has been interpreted as indicating that amygdala lesions reduce fear. It is unclear, however, whether amygdala-lesioned rats learn that the probe is associated with shock. If the lesions prevent the formation of this association, then pretraining reversible inactivation of the amygdala should impair both acquisition and retention performance. To test this hypothesis, the amygdala was inactivated (tetrodotoxin; TTX; 1 ng/side) before a shock-probe acquisition session, and retention was tested 4 d later. The data indicated that, compared with rats infused with vehicle, rats infused with TTX received more shocks during the acquisition session, but more importantly, were not impaired on the retention test. In Experiment 2, we assessed whether the spared memory on the retention test was caused by overtraining during acquisition. We used the same procedure as in Experiment 1, with the exception that the number of shocks the rats received during the acquisition session was limited to four. Again the data indicated that amygdala inactivation did not impair performance on the retention test. These results indicate that amygdala inactivation does not prevent the formation of an association between the shock and the probe and that shock-probe deficits during acquisition likely reflect the amygdala's involvement in other processes.     

A PHYSIOGNOLINGUISTIC APPROACH TO READING ASSESSMENT: AN ALTERNATE FORM OF MISCUE ANALYSIS

This article is a good natured parody of an area of controversy, informal classroom reading assessment, which has been receiving a great deal of journal coverage in recent years. Any similarity between this article and actual research being conducted is completely gratuitous.