Response to spatial and nonspatial change in wild (WWCPS) and Wistar rats

• Authors: Rafał Stryjek , Klaudia Modlińska , Wojciech Pisula
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The purpose of the experiment was to investigate the effects of domestication on exploration in rats. The comparison was made between wild Warsaw-Wild-Captive-Pisula-Stryjek (WWCPS) rats and Wistar laboratory rats. The study used a purpose-built maze divided into zones connected with a corridor. Objects were placed in two out of four zones. Their location and shape were subject to experimental manipulation. Transporter used to move rats to the maze provided the opportunity for spontaneous exploration of the experimental arena. Rats were subjected to a series of 10 sessions (habituation), followed by a spatial or nonspatial change in the experimental arena, after which another 5 experimental sessions were conducted. The study revealed that wild rats had much higher exploration latency than their laboratory counterparts. At each analyzed stage, WWCPS rats spent much more time in the transporter than Wistar rats. Wistar rats spent much more time during the experiment on object interaction in the experimental arena. In post-manipulation sessions, however, it was wild rats that explored object zones relatively longer than laboratory rats. No differences in the animals’ behavior depending on the type of change were observed. Results suggest that wild rats tend to explore much more cautiously than laboratory rats and are more sensitive to changes in their environment. The underlying cause of these differences is likely to be the higher level of stress in wild rats, resulting from threats in their natural habitat.

Keywords

EN

Wild rat; laboratory rat; domestication; exploratory behavior; neophobia

• Publisher: Committee for Psychological Sciences, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Journal: Polish Psychological Bulletin
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 43
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 124-131

Contributors

author

Rafał Stryjek

• Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
• Helena Chodkowska University of Management and Law, Warsaw, Poland

author

Klaudia Modlińska

• Helena Chodkowska University of Management and Law, Warsaw, Poland

author

Wojciech Pisula

• Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

References

• Barnett, S.A. (1958). Experiments on "neophobia" in wild and laboratory rats.British Journal of Psychology, 49, 195-201.
• Barnett, S.A. (2009). The Rat.A study in behavior.New Brunswick and London: Aldine Transaction.
• Barnett, S.A., Dickson, R.G., & Hocking, W.E. (1979). Genotype and Environment in the Social Interactions of Wild and Domestic "Norway" Rats.Aggressive Behavior, 5(2), 105-119.
• Barnett, S.A. & Hocking, W.E. (1981). Further experiments on the social interactions of domestic "Norway" rats.Aggressive Behavior, 7, 259-263.
• Berlyne, D.E. (1960).Conflict, arousal and curiosity.New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Berlyne, D.E., Koenig, I.D.V., & Hirota, T. (1966). Novelty, arousal, and the reinforcement of diversive exploration in the rat.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 62, 222-226.
• Birke, L. I. & Archer, J. (1983). Some issues and problems in the study of animal exploration. In J. Archer & L. I. Birke (Ed.),Exploration in animals and humans(pp. 1-21). Cambridge, Endland: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
• Blanchard, R.J., Flannelly, K.J., & Blanchard, D.C. (1986). Defensive behaviors of laboratory and wild Rattus Norvegicus.Journal of Comparative Psychology, 100, 101-107.
• Calhoun, J.B. (1963).The Ecology and Sociology of the Norway Rat.U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Bethesda, MD.
• Castle, W.E. (1947). The domestication of the rat.Genetics, 33, 109-117.
• Cavoy, A. & Delacour, J. (1993). Spatial but not object recognition is impaired by aging in rats.Physiology & Behavior, 53, 527-530.
• Cowan, P.E. (1977). Neophobia and neophilia: New-object and new-place reactions of three Rattus species.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 91, 63-71.
• Grubbs, F. (1969). Procedures for Detecting Outlying Observations in Samples.Technometrics, 11, 1-21.
• Hartmann, M.J., Johnson, N.J., Towal, R.B., & Assad, C. (2003). Mechanical characteristics of rat vibrissae: resonant frequencies and damping in isolated whiskers and in the awake behaving animal.Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 6510-6519.
• Huck, U.W. & Price, E.O. (1975). Differential effects of environmental enrichment on the open-field behavior of wild and domestic Norway rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 89, 892-898.
• Jacobs, G.H., Fenwick, J.A., & Williams, G.A. (2001). Cone-based vision of rats for ultraviolet and visible lights.Journal of Experimental Biology, 204, 2439-2446.
• Jensen, P. (2010). Domestication, selection, behavior and welfare of animals—Genetic mechanisms for rapid responses.Animal Welfare,19, 7-9.
• Keeler, C.E. (1947). Modification of brain and endocrine glands, as an explanation of altered behavior trends, in coat character mutant strains of the Norway rat.Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science, 22, 202-209.
• King, H.D. (1939). Life processes in gray Norway rats during fourteen years in captivity.American Anatomical Memoirs, 17, 1-72.
• Kish, G.B. (1955). Learning when the onset of illumination is used as reinforcing stimulus.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 48, 261-264.
• Millar, R.D. (1975). Free-operant comparisons of wild and domestic Norway rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 89, 913-922.
• Mitchell, D. (1976). Experiments on neophobia in wild and laboratory rats: A reevaluation.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 90, 190-197.
• Ottoni, E.B. (2000). EthoLog 2.2: a tool for the transcription and timing of behavior observation sessions.Behavior Research, Methods, Instruments & Computers, 32, 446-449.
• Pisula, W. (2003). Costs and benefits of curiosity: the adaptive value of exploratory behavior.Polish Psychological Bulletin, 34, 183-186.
• Pisula, W. (2009).Curiosity and information seeking in animal and human behavior.Boca Raton, Florida, USA: BrownWalker Press.
• Pisula, W. & Matysiak, J. (1998). Stimulus-Seeking Behavior. In G. Greenberg, M. M. Haraway (Ed.),Comparative Psychology - A Handbook(pp. 198-202). New York, London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
• Pisula, W., Stryjek, R., & Nałecz-Tolak, A. (2006). Response to novelty of various types in laboratory rats.Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 66, 235-243.
• Price, E.O. (1999). Behavioral development in animals undergoing domestication.Applied Animal Behavior Science, 65, 245-271.
• Prusky, G.T., Harker, K.T., Douglas, R.M., & Wishaw, I.Q. (2002). Variation in visual acuity within pigmented, and between pigmented and albino rat strains.Behavioral Brain Research, 136, 339-348.
• Ray, J. & Hansen, S. (2004). Temperament in the rat: Sex differences and hormonal influences on harm avoidance and novelty seeking.Behavioral Neuroscience, 118(3), 488-497.
• Shukitt-Hale, B., Casadesus, G., Cantuti-Castelvetri, I., & Joseph, J. A. (2001). Effect of age on object exploration, habituation, and response to spatial and nonspatial change.Behavioral Neuroscience, 115, 1059-1064.
• Sokolov, E.N. (1990). The orienting response, and future directions of its development.Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 25, 142-150.
• Stryjek, R. (2008). Devices for handling small mammals in laboratory conditions.Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 68, 407-413.
• Stryjek, R. (2010). Transportation device for rats.Lab Animal, 39 (9), 279-281.
• Stryjek, R. & Pisula, W. (2008). Warsaw Wild Captive Pisula Stryjek rats (WWCPS) - establishing a breeding colony of Norway Rat in captivity.Polish Psychological Bulletin, 39, 67-70.
• Szel, A. & Rohlich, P. (1992). Two cone types of rat retina detected by anti-visual pigment antibodies.Experimental Eye Research, 55, 47-52.
• Tolman, E.C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men.Psychological Review, 55, 189-208.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10059-012-0015-4