Literature DB >> 630411

Neurological tests and behavioral deficits in chronic thalamic and chronic decerebrate rats.

H J Grill, R Norgren.   

Abstract

The taste reactivity of chronic decerebrate rats is very similar to intact rats although chronic thalamic rats display only the quinine-like rejection sequence. The performance of intact (n = 12), decerebrate (n = 10) and thalamic (n = 10) preparations was further compared across a set of simple behavior tests to more broadly assess the behavioral capacities of the rodent brain stem. Decerebrate rats were immobile. They exhibited no spontaneous activity other than grooming, but often overreacted with well-coordinated movements (i.e., running, jumping and climbing) to seemingly inappropriate activating stimuli such as tail pinch, handling or water squirted on the fur. Decebrates had lower thresholds for elicited attack and grooming behaviors than thalamic or intact rats. The thalamic preparation exhibited a wider range of intact neurological responses than the decerebrate. Cage climbing, resistance to gravity, suspension and muscle tone reactions, rhythmic vibrissae movements and examination of objects with snout and mandible were difficult to distinguish from controls. Decerebrates either did not perform these responses or did so in a clearly different manner. In contrast, grooming behavior in thalamics was much less effective than in decerebrates. Thalamic rats spontaneously executed grooming sequences, but the responses were misdirected and ineffective. Desite their relative immobility, decerebrates coordinated grooming sequences and maintained their fur. No single mechanism appears to account for the constellation of deficits and capacities observed in either chronic thalamic or chronic decerebrate rats.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1978        PMID: 630411     DOI: 10.1016/0006-8993(78)90570-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Res        ISSN: 0006-8993            Impact factor:   3.252


  16 in total

1.  Expansion of formalin-evoked Fos-immunoreactivity in rats with a spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Daniel A Castellanos; Linda A Daniels; Mena P Morales; Aldric T Hama; Jacqueline Sagen
Journal:  Neurosci Res       Date:  2007-05-03       Impact factor: 3.304

2.  Implementation of action sequences by a neostriatal site: a lesion mapping study of grooming syntax.

Authors:  H C Cromwell; K C Berridge
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1996-05-15       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Modifications of masticatory behavior after trigeminal deafferentation in the rabbit.

Authors:  T Inoue; T Kato; Y Masuda; T Nakamura; Y Kawamura; T Morimoto
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Suppression of third ventricular NPY-elicited feeding following medullary reticular formation infusions of muscimol.

Authors:  Joseph B Travers; Kenneth Herman; Susan P Travers
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.912

5.  Structure-function subsystem models of female and male forebrain networks integrating cognition, affect, behavior, and bodily functions.

Authors:  Larry W Swanson; Joel D Hahn; Olaf Sporns
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Pavlov and appetite.

Authors:  G P Smith
Journal:  Integr Physiol Behav Sci       Date:  1995 Apr-Jun

Review 7.  Role of the glucagon-like-peptide-1 receptor in the control of energy balance.

Authors:  Matthew R Hayes; Bart C De Jonghe; Scott E Kanoski
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2010-03-10

8.  2-Deoxy-D-glucose, but not mercaptoacetate, increases food intake in decerebrate rats.

Authors:  Rebecca A Darling; Sue Ritter
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2009-06-03       Impact factor: 3.619

9.  Chemospecific deficits in taste sensitivity following bilateral or right hemispheric gustatory cortex lesions in rats.

Authors:  Michelle B Bales; Alan C Spector
Journal:  J Comp Neurol       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 3.215

Review 10.  Advances in the neurobiological bases for food 'liking' versus 'wanting'.

Authors:  D C Castro; K C Berridge
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2014-05-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.