Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T14:46:38.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thresholds of response to electric shock in previously undernourished rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. L. Smart ,
T. S. Whatson  and
J. Dqbbing
J. L. Smart
Affiliation:
Department of Child Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PT
T. S. Whatson
Affiliation:
Department of Child Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PT
J. Dqbbing
Affiliation:
Department of Child Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Rats were undernourished in early life by feeding their mothers a restricted quantity of a good-quality diet during pregnancy and lactation. All offspring were fed ad lib. from weaning. Behavioural tests were done using adult males.

2. Thresholds of aversion to electric shock were determined in a rectangular box, one side of which was designated ‘live’ and the other ‘safe’ (o V side) for any particular shock level. Three 15 min sessions were given at each of five shock levels. Previously undernourished rats had a lower aversion threshold than controls. They spent more time than controls on the o V side at two intermediate levels of shock.

3. Other male rats were subjected to six graded series of brief, unavoidable shocks. Previously undernourished rats responded to a greater total number of shocks than controls.

4. These results support the hypothesis that previously undernourished rats have a lowered threshold of arousal.

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , November 1975 , pp. 511 - 516
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1975

References

Adlard, B. P. F. & Smart, J. L. (1972). J. Endocr. 54, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, B. A. (1967). In Early Behavior, p. 43 [Stevenson, H. W., Hess, E. H. and Rheingold, H. L., editors]. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Cravens, R. W. (1974). Devl Psychobiol. 7, 61.Google Scholar
Dobbing, J. & Smart, J. L. (1973). In Ethology and Development, Clinics in Developmental Medicine, no. 47, p. 16 [Barnett, S. A., editor]. London: Spastics Society and Heinemann.Google Scholar
Dobbing, J. & Smart, J. L. (1974). Br. med. Bull. 30, 164.Google Scholar
Evans, W. O. (1961). Psychopharmacologia 2, 318.Google Scholar
Levitsky, D. A. & Barnes, R. H. (1970). Nature, Lond. 225, 468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paré, W. P. & Cullen, J. W. (1971). Horm. Behav. 2, 139.Google Scholar
Smart, J. L. & Dobbing, J. (1971). Brain Res. 28, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, J. L., Dobbing, J., Adlard, B. P. F., Lynch, A. & Sands, J. (1973). J. Nutr. 103, 1327.Google Scholar