4.3 Article

Contextual fear conditioning differs for infant, adolescent, and adult rats

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL PROCESSES
卷 78, 期 3, 页码 340-350

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2008.01.010

关键词

contextual fear conditioning; fear extinction; learning; olfactory context; hippocampus; ontogeny

资金

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [R01 AA013098-07, R01 AA013098, R01 AA011960-10, R01 AA015992-03, R01 AA011960, R01 AA015992] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [5R37 MH35219, R01 MH035219, R37 MH035219, R01 MH035219-25] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Contextual fear conditioning was tested in infant, adolescent, and adult rats in terms of Pavlovian-conditioned suppression. When a discrete auditory-conditioned stimulus (CS) was paired with footshock (unconditioned stimulus, US) within the largely olfactory context, infants and adolescents conditioned to the context with substantial effectiveness, but adult rats did not. When unpaired presentations of the CS and US occurred within the context, contextual fear conditioning was strong for adults, weak for infants, but about as strong for adolescents as when pairings of CS and US occurred in the context. Nonreinforced presentations of either the CS or context markedly reduced contextual fear conditioning in infants, but, in adolescents, CS extinction had no effect on contextual fear conditioning, although context extinction significantly reduced it. Neither CS extinction nor context extinction affected responding to the CS-context compound in infants, suggesting striking discrimination between the compound and its components. Female adolescents showed the same lack of effect of component extinction on response to the compound as infants, but CS extinction reduced responding to the compound in adolescent males, a sex difference seen also in adults. Theoretical implications are discussed for the development of perceptual-cognitive processing and hippocampus role. (C) 2008 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

4.3
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