“Object permanence” test for rats. First experiments

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The description of the developed experimental set, permitting to evaluate rats solution of the “object permanence” test (be J. Piaget), which reflects animal capacity to operate one of the most simple empirical rules (by Krushinsky), i.e. capacity to solve elementary logic task. An animal, being placed in the brightly lit part of the box, is eager to run into the dark one via underpass, although after the first attempts the underpass was hidden by several means, and now an animal can solve the task overcoming the obstacle in case it operates the object permanence rule. The test solution does not require the previous learning, and it is similar to the test used in mice experiments. The test was applied in experiments with rats of five genetic groups – outbred Wistar and Long-Evans rats, rats of inbred audiogenic-prone Krushinsky – Molodkina (KM) strain, the strain derived from KM rats, selected for audiogenic non-proneness and inbred SHR strain with spontaneous arterial hypertension. The preliminary experiments (performed with an animal during one experimental day) revealed interstrain differences with the test solution prevalence in SHR strain. This test could be used in pharmacological and neurophysiological experiments with rats.

About the authors

A. G. Korolev

Moscow State University; P. Lumumba RUPF

Author for correspondence.
Email: korolevpost@gmail.com

Biology Department; Medical Institute

Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow

P. D. Ogourtsov

Moscow State University

Email: korolevpost@gmail.com

Biology Department

Russian Federation, Moscow

A. N. Inozemtsev

Moscow State University

Email: korolevpost@gmail.com

Biology Department

Russian Federation, Moscow

I. I. Poletaeva

Moscow State University

Email: korolevpost@gmail.com

Biology Department

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Крушинский Л.В. Биологические основы рассудочной деятельности: Эволюционный и физиолого-генетический аспекты поведения.
  2. Королев А.Г., Иноземцев А.Н., Полетаева И.И. Устройство для исследования поведения лабораторных крыс: пат. 2023132329/14(071447) РФ, 08.12.2023.
  3. Лакин Г.Ф. Биометрия. М. Высшая школа, 1990.
  4. Иноземцев А.Н., Королев А.Г. Инструментальное оборонительное поведение: подходы и методы исследования. Учебное пособие. М.: Москва, 2023. 200с.
  5. Ben Abdallah N.M.-B., Fuss J., Trusel M., Michael J., Galsworthy M.J., Bobsin K., Colacicco G., Robert M.J., Deacon R.M.J., Riva M.A., Christoph Kellendonk C., Sprengel R., Lipp H.-P., Gass P. The puzzle box as a simple and efficient behavioral test for exploring impairments of general cognition and executive functions in mouse models of schizophrenia. Experim. Neurology, 2011, v. 227: 42–52.
  6. Fasmer O.B., Johansen E.B. Patterns of motor activity in spontaneously hypertensive rats compared to Wistar Kyoto rats. Behav Brain Funct. 2016. 12(1): 32.
  7. doi: 10.1186/s12993-016-0117-9.
  8. Galsworthy M.J., Paya-Cano J.L., Monleon S., Plomin R. Evidence for general cognitive ability (g) in heterogeneous stock mice and an analysis of potential confounds. Genes Brain Behav. 2002. 1 (1): 88–95.
  9. Galsworthy M.J., Paya-Cano J.L., Liu L., Monleon S., Gregoryan G., Fernandes C., Schalkwyk L.C., Plomin R. Assessing reliability, heritability and general cognitive ability in a battery of cognitive tasks for laboratory mice. Behav. Genet. 2005, 35(5): 675–692.
  10. doi: 10.1007/s10519-005-3423-9.
  11. Pickens C.L., Holland P.C. Conditioning and cognition. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2004. 28: 651–661.
  12. Hand D.J., Fox A.T., Reilly M.P. Differential effects of d-amphetamine on impulsive choice in spontaneously hypertensive and Wistar-Kyoto rats. Behav Pharm. 2009. 20(5–6): 549–553.
  13. doi: 10.1097/FBP.0b013e3283305ee1
  14. Hand D.J., Fox A.T., Reilly M.P. Response acquisition with signaled delayed reinforcement in a rodent model of ADHD. Behav Brain Res. 2010. 213(2): 155–160.
  15. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2010.04.043.
  16. Hendley E.D., Wessel D.J., Atwater D.G., Gellis J., Whitehorn D., Low W.C. Age, sex and strain ifferences in activity and habituation in SHR and WKY rats. Physiol Behav. 1985. 34(3): 379–383.
  17. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(85)90199-4
  18. Perepelkina O.V., Poletaeva I.I. Selection of Mice for Object Permanence Cognitive Task Solution. Neurol Int. 2022. 14(3): 696–706.
  19. doi: 10.3390/neurolint14030058.PMID: 36135993
  20. Rosenwasser A.M., Plante L. Circadian activity rhythms in SHR and WKY rats: strain differences and effects of clonidine. Physiol Behav. 1993. 53(1): 23–29.
  21. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(93)90006-2.
  22. Silic B., Aggarwal M., Liyanagama K., Tripp G., Wickens JR. Conditioned approach behavior of SHR and SD rats during Pavlovian conditioning. Behav. Brain Res. 2023. 443:114348.
  23. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2023.114348
  24. Zucca P., Milos N., Vallortigara G. Piagetian object permanence and its development in Eurasian jays (Garrulus glandarius). Anim. Cogn. 2007. 10: 243–258.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2024 Russian Academy of Sciences