Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Y

Discrimination. --- Horse. --- Horses. --- Learning. --- Performance. --- Reversal learning. --- Task. --- Tasks.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Attentional set-shifting and discrimination reversal are sensitive to prefrontal damage in the marmoset in a manner qualitatively similar to that seen in man and Old World monkeys, respectively (Dias et al., 1996b), Preliminary findings have demonstrated that although lateral but not orbital prefrontal cortex is the critical locus in shifting an attentional set between perceptual dimensions, orbital but not lateral prefrontal cortex is the critical locus in reversing a stimulus-reward association within a particular perceptual dimension (Dias et al., 1996a). The present study presents this analysis in full and extends the results in three main ways by demonstrating that (1) mechanisms of inhibitory control and "on-line" processing are independent within the prefrontal cortex, (2) impairments in inhibitory control induced by prefrontal damage are restricted to novel situations, and (3) those prefrontal areas involved in the suppression of previously established response sets are not involved in the acquisition of such response sets. These findings suggest that inhibitory control is a general process that operates across functionally distinct regions within the prefrontal cortex. Although damage to lateral prefrontal cortex causes a loss of inhibitory control in attentional selection, damage to orbitofrontal cortex causes a loss of inhibitory control in affective processing. These findings provide an explanation for the apparent discrepancy between human and nonhuman primate studies in which disinhibition as measured on the Wisconsin Card Sort Test is associated with dorsolateral prefrontal damage, whereas disinhibition as measured on discrimination reversal is associated with orbitofrontal damage

Acquisition. --- Analysis. --- Area. --- Association. --- Attentional set shifting. --- Attentional set-shifting. --- Control. --- Cortex. --- Damage. --- Deficits. --- Dimension. --- Dimensions. --- Discrimination. --- Disinhibition. --- Excitotoxic lesions. --- Frontal-lobe damage. --- Human infants. --- Human. --- Impairments. --- Man. --- Marmoset. --- Mechanisms. --- Memory. --- Monkey. --- Monkeys. --- Object. --- Old. --- Orbitofrontal cortex. --- Prefrontal cortex. --- Primate. --- Response inhibition. --- Response. --- Restriction. --- Reversal learning. --- Rhesus-monkeys. --- Selection. --- Situations. --- Suppression. --- Test. --- Time. --- Wisconsin card sort test. --- Working memory.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Several studies suggest that classification of piglets early in life based on the degree of resistance they display in a so-called Backtest may be indicative of their coping style at a later age. In the present study behavioural flexibility was investigated in pigs diverging for Backtest response and housing environment during rearing. Pigs were housed either without a rooting substrate (barren housing, 13) or in identical pens enriched with deep straw bedding (enriched housing, E) from birth. During the suckling period piglets were subjected to the Backtest. Each piglet was restrained on its back for I min and the resistance (i.e. number of escape attempts) was scored. Pigs classified as 'high-resisting' (HR) or as 'low-resisting' (LR) were subjected to a simple (left/right) spatial discrimination (T-maze) task at 8 weeks of age. The effect of a single, subtle intramaze change was determined after acquisition of the task. In addition, pigs were subjected to reversal learning to assess their ability to modulate established behaviour patterns. Housing and its interaction with Backtest classification influenced the behavioural response to the intramaze change: E pigs were considerably more distracted than B pigs. Housing condition affected LR pigs more than HR pigs, as indicated by the interaction effects on various recorded behaviours. These interactions indicate that behavioural responding of pigs with diverging coping characteristics cannot simply be generalised across rearing conditions. Furthermore, FIR pigs were less successful in reversal learning than LR pigs, suggesting that they have a higher propensity to develop inflexible behavioural routines. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Ability. --- Acquisition. --- Age. --- Apomorphine. --- Backtest. --- Basal ganglia. --- Bedding. --- Behaviour. --- Behavioural flexibility. --- Birth. --- Breeding gilts. --- Classification. --- Coping characteristics. --- Coping strategy. --- Coping style. --- Coping. --- Discrimination. --- Enriched. --- Environment. --- Environmental enrichment. --- Escape. --- Exploration. --- Fish. --- Flexibility. --- Growing-pigs. --- Housing. --- Human. --- Interaction. --- Interactions. --- Learning. --- Life. --- Male great tits. --- Memory-systems. --- Pattern. --- Patterns. --- Pen. --- Personality. --- Physiological-responses. --- Pig. --- Piglets. --- Pigs. --- Rat. --- Rearing. --- Resistance. --- Response. --- Reversal learning. --- Routine-like behaviour. --- Spatial discrimination learning. --- Spatial. --- Straw bedding. --- Straw. --- T-maze. --- Task.