↓ Skip to main content

Conditioned place preference for social interaction in rats: contribution of sensory components

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Conditioned place preference for social interaction in rats: contribution of sensory components
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2011.00080
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kai Kummer, Sabine Klement, Vincent Eggart, Michael J. Mayr, Alois Saria, Gerald Zernig

Abstract

A main challenge in the therapy of drug dependent individuals is to help them reactivate interest in non-drug-associated activities. We previously developed a rat experimental model based on the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm in which only four 15-min episodes of social interaction with a gender- and weight-matched male Sprague Dawley rat (1) reversed CPP from cocaine to social interaction despite continuing cocaine training and (2) prevented the reinstatement of cocaine CPP. In the present study, we investigated which of the sensory modalities of the composite stimulus "social interaction" contributes most to the rats' preference for it. If touch was limited by steel bars spaced at a distance of 2 cm and running across the whole length of a partitioning, CPP was still acquired, albeit to a lesser degree. If both rats were placed on the same side of a partitioning, rats did not develop CPP for social interaction. Thus, decreasing the available area for social interaction from 750 to 375 cm(2) prevented the acquisition of CPP to social interaction despite the fact that animals could touch each other more intensely than through the bars of the partitioning. When touch was fully restricted by a glass screen dividing the conditioning chambers, and the only sensory modalities left were visual and olfactory cues, place preference shifted to place aversion. Overall, our findings indicate that the major rewarding sensory component of the composite stimulus "social interaction" is touch (taction).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 3%
Austria 1 1%
Unknown 69 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 21%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 18 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 21%
Psychology 9 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 16 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2013.
All research outputs
#15,270,698
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,211
of 3,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,160
of 180,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#25
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,147 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.