» Articles » PMID: 27196624

Systematic Variation of Acquisition Rate in Delay Eyelid Conditioning

Overview
Journal Behav Neurosci
Specialty Psychology
Date 2016 May 20
PMID 27196624
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Averaging artifacts inherent in group acquisition curves can mask behavioral phenomena that are potentially revealing in terms of underlying neural mechanisms. To address this, we implemented a behavioral analysis of 106 rabbits trained over 4 sessions using delay eyelid conditioning. Group results showed the typical monotonic increase in conditioned responses (CRs). For most subjects CRs first appeared (as indexed by the criterion of 8 CRs in 9 trials) during the first 18 trials of the second training session. Subdividing subjects according to the training block at which they met criterion revealed systematic differences in the subsequent rate that CR amplitudes increased, but not in asymptotic CR amplitudes. Subjects meeting criterion early in sessions showed more rapid increases in CR amplitude than those meeting criterion later in sessions. This effect was solely dependent on how early within a session criterion was met, as subjects meeting criterion at the beginning of the third and fourth sessions showed more rapid increases in CR amplitude than those meeting criterion after the first 18 trials of the second session. The exceptions were the 7% of the subjects that met criterion late in the first session. Their CR amplitudes increased at a rate similar to subjects meeting criterion early in sessions. These results suggest an interplay between consolidation processes and a previously reported short-term plasticity process that makes CR acquisition a nonmonotonic and complex function of the point during training sessions at which CRs first appear. (PsycINFO Database Record

Citing Articles

Inactivation of the interpositus nucleus during unpaired extinction does not prevent extinction of conditioned eyeblink responses or conditioning-specific reflex modification.

Burhans L, Schreurs B Behav Neurosci. 2019; 133(4):398-413.

PMID: 30869952 PMC: 6625864. DOI: 10.1037/bne0000309.


Grouping subjects based on conditioning criteria reveals differences in acquisition rates and in strength of conditioning-specific reflex modification.

Smith-Bell C, Schreurs B Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2017; 145:172-180.

PMID: 29031809 PMC: 6613373. DOI: 10.1016/j.nlm.2017.10.004.

References
1.
Jurado-Parras M, Sanchez-Campusano R, Castellanos N, Del-Pozo F, Gruart A, Delgado-Garcia J . Differential contribution of hippocampal circuits to appetitive and consummatory behaviors during operant conditioning of behaving mice. J Neurosci. 2013; 33(6):2293-304. PMC: 6619163. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1013-12.2013. View

2.
Perrett S, Ruiz B, Mauk M . Cerebellar cortex lesions disrupt learning-dependent timing of conditioned eyelid responses. J Neurosci. 1993; 13(4):1708-18. PMC: 6576722. View

3.
Cooke S, Attwell P, Yeo C . Temporal properties of cerebellar-dependent memory consolidation. J Neurosci. 2004; 24(12):2934-41. PMC: 6729844. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5505-03.2004. View

4.
Thompson R, Steinmetz J . The role of the cerebellum in classical conditioning of discrete behavioral responses. Neuroscience. 2009; 162(3):732-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.01.041. View

5.
Kleim J, Freeman Jr J, Bruneau R, Nolan B, Cooper N, Zook A . Synapse formation is associated with memory storage in the cerebellum. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002; 99(20):13228-31. PMC: 130615. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.202483399. View