Literature DB >> 10877894

Getting better all the time: improving preference scores reflect increases in the strength of filial imprinting.

.   

Abstract

In the investigation of the neural mechanisms of filial imprinting, neurochemical measures are often correlated with preference score (PS): approach activity to the training stimulus/total approach in a test. In a previous study, domestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus, that had a PS under 65% were classed as 'poor learners' and those with a PS greater than 65% were called 'good learners'. We tested the effects of continued imprinting training in chicks from these two categories. After exposure to an imprinting stimulus for 30 min on day 1 after hatching, preferences were tested and then the chicks were exposed to the same stimulus for either 90 min, 3 h or 4 h on the next day, followed by a second preference test. In all these experiments there was a significant improvement in mean PS in the 'poor learners' between the first and second test, such that these chicks acquired a significant mean preference for the training stimulus. There was no such improvement in chicks that did not receive further training on day 2. When absolute approach was analysed, there was no significant difference between 'poor learners' and 'good learners' at the second test, after 4 h of retraining. Overall, mean preference scores increased with length of training. These results suggest that 'poor learners' are better characterized as 'slow learners', and that their initially low PS is not caused by, for example, a lack of motivation to express a preference. Preference scores reflect the strength of learning during imprinting. Copyright 2000 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

Entities:  

Year:  2000        PMID: 10877894     DOI: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1413

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anim Behav        ISSN: 0003-3472            Impact factor:   2.844


  10 in total

1.  Ca2+/calmodulin protein kinase II and memory: learning-related changes in a localized region of the domestic chick brain.

Authors:  Revaz O Solomonia; Adam Kotorashvili; Tamar Kiguradze; Brian J McCabe; Gabriel Horn
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2005-09-22       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  Different forms of MARCKS protein are involved in memory formation in the learning process of imprinting.

Authors:  Revaz O Solomonia; David Apkhazava; Maia Nozadze; Antony P Jackson; Brian J McCabe; Gabriel Horn
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-05-31       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Stability and individual variability of social attachment in imprinting.

Authors:  Bastien S Lemaire; Daniele Rucco; Mathilde Josserand; Giorgio Vallortigara; Elisabetta Versace
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-12       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Neurobehavioral teratogenicity of perfluorinated alkyls in an avian model.

Authors:  Adi Pinkas; Theodore A Slotkin; Yael Brick-Turin; Eddy A Van der Zee; Joseph Yanai
Journal:  Neurotoxicol Teratol       Date:  2009-11-27       Impact factor: 3.763

5.  Regulation of filial imprinting and structural plasticity by mTORC1 in newborn chickens.

Authors:  Gervasio Batista; Jennifer L Johnson; Elena Dominguez; Mauro Costa-Mattioli; Jose L Pena
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-23       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  AMPA receptor phosphorylation and recognition memory: learning-related, time-dependent changes in the chick brain following filial imprinting.

Authors:  Revaz O Solomonia; Maia Meparishvili; Ekaterine Mikautadze; Nana Kunelauri; David Apkhazava; Brian J McCabe
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  A Proteomic Study of Memory After Imprinting in the Domestic Chick.

Authors:  Maia Meparishvili; Maia Nozadze; Giorgi Margvelani; Brian J McCabe; Revaz O Solomonia
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2015-11-26       Impact factor: 3.558

Review 8.  Molecular mechanisms of memory in imprinting.

Authors:  Revaz O Solomonia; Brian J McCabe
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2014-10-02       Impact factor: 8.989

9.  Translational control of auditory imprinting and structural plasticity by eIF2α.

Authors:  Gervasio Batista; Jennifer Leigh Johnson; Elena Dominguez; Mauro Costa-Mattioli; Jose L Pena
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2016-12-23       Impact factor: 8.713

10.  Micro-RNAs, their target proteins, predispositions and the memory of filial imprinting.

Authors:  Giorgi Margvelani; Maia Meparishvili; Tamar Kiguradze; Brian J McCabe; Revaz Solomonia
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.