Continuous, Spontaneous Alternation in the Rat: Influence of Y-Maze Arm Times
- 1 August 1980
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Perceptual and Motor Skills
- Vol. 51 (2) , 359-369
- https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1980.51.2.359
Abstract
Fifty-four male hooded rats were observed for two sessions, 8 min. each for continuous spontaneous alternation in a Y-maze. Subjects were found to alternate on 71% of all choices. Responsivity decreased during each session and a decided preference was shown for the initial placement arm regardless of its spatial position. Though arms per se did not affect alternation, the amount of time spent in previous arms differentially affected alternation depending on whether the subject was displaying alternation or non-alternation behavior during the preceding trials. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for stimulus satiation models of spontaneous alternation behavior.This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Effects of ?9-THC, LSD-25 and scopolamine on continuous, spontaneous alternation in the Y-mazePsychopharmacology, 1973
- Stimulus control of spontaneous alternation in the rat.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1970
- Spontaneous alternation behavior in the rat.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1969
- An examination of central actions characteristic of scopolamine: Comparison of central and peripheral activity in scopolamine, atropine and some synthetic basic estersPsychopharmacology, 1965
- Hippocampal lesions and activityPsychonomic Science, 1964
- Spontaneous alternation behavior.Psychological Bulletin, 1958
- The role of stimulus satiation in spontaneous alternation.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953
- The influence of work on behavior.Psychological Bulletin, 1948
- The Avoidance of Repetition of a Maze Reaction in the Rat as a Function of the Time Interval Between TrialsThe Journal of Psychology, 1940
- Spontaneous alternation in rats as an indicator of the persistence of stimulus effects.Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1939