{"title":"Memory and perseveration on a win-stay, lose-shift task in rats exposed neonatally to alcohol.","authors":"Matthew C Bell, Edward P Riley","doi":"10.15288/jsa.2006.67.851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>It is important to understand the relationship between perseverative responding resulting from perinatal exposure to alcohol and potential underlying causes, including attention, memory, or response-inhibition problems. The present study was designed to examine the relationship between perseveration and memory.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Rats exposed neonatally to 6 g/kg/day alcohol from postnatal day (PD) 4 through PD 9 using an artificial rearing technique (n = 8) were compared with an artificially reared gastrostomy control group (n = 8) and a suckle control group (n = 8). Activity levels were assessed from PD 18-21. Beginning on PD 45, subjects were deprived of food and responded for food on a two-lever win-stay, lose-shift task in which reinforcement probability was a function of reinforcement delivery on the previous trial. If reinforcement was delivered, only a response on the same lever (stay) was reinforced. If reinforcement was not delivered, only a response on the opposite lever (shift) was reinforced. Effective responding depended on subjects remembering whether a reinforcer was delivered on the preceding trial. The intertrial interval varied across conditions (5 seconds or 60 seconds).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Alcohol-exposed rats showed increased activity during activity testing but did not differ from controls on win-stay, lose-shift accuracy. All groups showed a performance decrease at longer intertrial intervals. Alcohol-exposed rats showed increased lever pressing during the intertrial interval compared with suckle control rats but not with gastrostomy control rats.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Choice behavior was comparable for all groups on the win-stay, lose-shift task, indicating that memory, as assessed by this task, was not differentially affected by alcohol exposure. Alcohol-exposed rats responded more during the intertrial interval compared with suckle controls, suggesting increased activity without increased response inhibition. The win-stay, lose-shift procedure is a potentially useful tool for separating simple activity level effects, memory-related effects, and response-inhibition effects. This study also highlights the need for additional research describing the relationship between perseverative responding and underlying mechanisms.</p>","PeriodicalId":17092,"journal":{"name":"Journal of studies on alcohol","volume":"67 6","pages":"851-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.15288/jsa.2006.67.851","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of studies on alcohol","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2006.67.851","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: It is important to understand the relationship between perseverative responding resulting from perinatal exposure to alcohol and potential underlying causes, including attention, memory, or response-inhibition problems. The present study was designed to examine the relationship between perseveration and memory.
Method: Rats exposed neonatally to 6 g/kg/day alcohol from postnatal day (PD) 4 through PD 9 using an artificial rearing technique (n = 8) were compared with an artificially reared gastrostomy control group (n = 8) and a suckle control group (n = 8). Activity levels were assessed from PD 18-21. Beginning on PD 45, subjects were deprived of food and responded for food on a two-lever win-stay, lose-shift task in which reinforcement probability was a function of reinforcement delivery on the previous trial. If reinforcement was delivered, only a response on the same lever (stay) was reinforced. If reinforcement was not delivered, only a response on the opposite lever (shift) was reinforced. Effective responding depended on subjects remembering whether a reinforcer was delivered on the preceding trial. The intertrial interval varied across conditions (5 seconds or 60 seconds).
Results: Alcohol-exposed rats showed increased activity during activity testing but did not differ from controls on win-stay, lose-shift accuracy. All groups showed a performance decrease at longer intertrial intervals. Alcohol-exposed rats showed increased lever pressing during the intertrial interval compared with suckle control rats but not with gastrostomy control rats.
Conclusions: Choice behavior was comparable for all groups on the win-stay, lose-shift task, indicating that memory, as assessed by this task, was not differentially affected by alcohol exposure. Alcohol-exposed rats responded more during the intertrial interval compared with suckle controls, suggesting increased activity without increased response inhibition. The win-stay, lose-shift procedure is a potentially useful tool for separating simple activity level effects, memory-related effects, and response-inhibition effects. This study also highlights the need for additional research describing the relationship between perseverative responding and underlying mechanisms.