Failure to produce conditioning with low-dose trimethylthiazoline or cat feces as unconditioned stimuli
Failure to produce conditioning with low-dose trimethylthiazoline or cat feces as unconditioned stimuli
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0735-7044.117.2.360
复制
发表时间：
2003-04-01
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Blanchard, RJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Blanchard, DC;Markham, C;Blanchard, RJ
三甲基噻唑啉（TMT），狐狸粪便的衍生物，已被报道不能产生厌恶条件反射作为一个非条件刺激（UCS）时，提出了大量的（I。S.麦格雷戈湖Schrama，P. Ambermoon，& R. A. Dielenberg，2002年）。实验I评估了非常低的TMT水平，但在暴露期间在大鼠中产生防御行为。虽然每个水平（0.01，0.05，和0.10穆尔TMT）产生的防御性的显着变化，没有导致显着变化的第二天在TMT的情况下。实验2评估猫尿、猫粪便和猫毛皮/皮肤气味与无气味对照。尿液没有产生显着的变化，但粪便和毛皮/皮肤气味引起几乎相同的变化，在暴露过程中的防御行为。当第二天在没有气味的情况下进行测试时，皮毛/皮肤气味暴露组在暴露期间的相同行为上显示出显著差异，但粪便暴露组在任何测量上都没有显示出差异。结果表明，缺乏空调TMT可能与捕食者气味的类型，而不是量，捕食者物种，或可能缺乏气味成分的TMT是存在于自然粪便。捕食者粪便也可能是不太有效的UCS，因为他们是不好的预测的实际存在的捕食者，这表明需要重新评估的UCS功能厌恶条件反射。
Trimethylthiazoline (TMT), a derivative of fox feces, has been reported to fail to produce aversive conditioning as an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) when presented in large amounts (I. S. McGregor, L. Schrama, P. Ambermoon, & R. A. Dielenberg, 2002). Experiment I evaluated very low TMT levels that nonetheless produced defensive behaviors in rats during exposure. Although each level (0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 mul TMT) produced significant change in defensiveness, none resulted in significant changes the following day in the absence of TMT. Experiment 2 evaluated cat urine, cat feces, and cat fur/skin odor against a no-odor control. Urine produced no significant changes, but feces and fur/skin odors elicited virtually identical changes in defensive behaviors during exposure. When tested the next day in the absence of odor, the fur/skin odor-exposed group showed significant differences on the same behaviors as during exposure, but the feces-exposed group showed no differences on any measure. Results suggest that lack of conditioning to TMT may relate to the type of predator odor rather than the amount, predator species, or possible lack of odor components in TMT that are present in natural feces. Predator feces may also be less effective as a UCS because they are poorly predictive of the actual presence of the predator, suggesting the need for a reevaluation of UCS functions in aversive conditioning.