4.6 Article

Vibrissal paralysis unveils a preference for textural rather than positional novelty in the one-trial object recognition task in rats

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 211, 期 2, 页码 229-235

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2010.03.044

关键词

Object recognition memory; Facial nerve injury; Vibrissae; Rats; Object texture preference; Object place preference; Facial paralysis

资金

  1. DIB [7480]
  2. COLCIENCIAS [110145221092]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to explore the role of active whisking in object novelty detection, the performance of rats having bilateral vibrissal paralysis was compared to that of non-lesioned animals in three modified versions of the one-trial object recognition task performed in the dark. Vibrissal paralysis was induced by crushing the buccal and mandibular branches of the facial nerve. Lesioned animals were not different from non-lesioned ones in terms of weight-gain, locomotive activity, motivation to explore, and ability to become habituated to a given environment. Only lesioned animals were unable to discriminate a change in object texture as novelty cue in the first task, designed to test textural novelty detection. In the second task, designed to test positional novelty detection, both lesioned and non-lesioned subjects were able to discriminate a change in object position as novelty cue. In the third task, designed to force the subjects to choose between two conflicting novelty cues (texture and position), non-lesioned subjects displayed a clear-cut preference for textural novelty while subjects having bilateral vibrissal paralysis preferred positional novelty. According to these results, active whisking is necessary for textural, but not for positional novelty detection. Moreover, these results indicate that textural novelty in non-lesioned animals seems to overcome positional novelty if these are in competition in an object recognition memory task. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据