Three main factors in rat shuttle behavior: Their pharmacology and sequential entry in operation during a two-way avoidance session

Abstract

The effects of eserine (0.1 mg/kg), nicotine (0.2 mg/kg), atropine (2 mg/kg), methylatropine (5 mg/kg), clonidine (0.2 mg/kg), phenoxybenzamine (10 mg/kg), apomorphine (0.5 mg/kg), and haloperidol (0.5 mg/kg), ip.p., on shuttle responses to a buzzer (SBs) were studied on four different behavioral paradigms in rats: (a) D test: 50 buzzers and 25 shocks at random intervals and in random order; (b) DP test: 50 buzzers paired on all trials with shocks irrespective of the performance of SBs (Pavlovian conditioning); (c) DC test: 50 buzzers followed at a randomly variable interval by shocks unless there was an SB; (d) DPC test: 50 buzzer-shock trials omitting shocks every time there was an SB (two-way avoidance). Shock-induced drive was assumed to equally pervade all four situations; stimulus contiguity (‘pairing’) was present only in the DP and DPC tests; and the avoidance ‘contingency’ was present only in the DC and DPC paradigms. An analysis of the distribution of SB performance in control animals over the 10 successive blocks of 5 buzzers of each session revealed that the response level was similar for all tests during the first 2 blocks; that of the DC and DPC groups increased above the level of the other two from the third block on; and from the fifth block on, SB performance was higher in the DPC than in the DC group and in the DP over the D group. At all blocks the sum of SBs obtained in the D test, plus DP-D, plus DC-D, gave a value quite close to that experimentally determined in the DPC group. This was interpreted as showing that during the first 10 buzzers drive was the main (or the only) factor influencing SB performance in all groups; after the third block of 5 buzzers ‘contingency’ became a factor on its own; and ‘pairing’ assumed some control over SB behavior only from the fifth block on. Eserine depressed SBs in the D test, starting from the first block of buzzers; its effect was antagonized by atropine and by methylatropine. Clonidine depressed responding in the DP and DPC paradigms, and its effect was blocked by phenoxybenzamine. Nicotine, eserine, and apomorphine increased, and atropine, methylatropine, and haloperidol decreased SB performance in both the DC and the DPC test; the effect of the two former substances could be antagonized by any of the two anticholinergic agents, and haloperidol antagonized that of apomorphine. The possibilities are discussed of: (a) a peripheral cholinergic mechanism which inhibits drive; (b) a similar mechanism which favors operation of the ‘contingency’ factor; (c) a dopaminergic mechanism in ‘contingency’ (d) a central adrenergic inhibitory mechanism in ‘pairing’.