Using a runway paradigm to assess the relative strength of rats' motivations for enrichment objects

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 517-524

  Hanmer, Louise A ^a   Riddell, Patricia M ^a   Williams, Claire M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MOTIVATION; PSYCHOLOGY; RAT; RAT STRAIN; RUNNING; TIME;

ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; MALE; MOTIVATION; PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL; RATS; RATS, INBRED STRAINS; RUNNING; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 77955870213     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BRM.42.2.517     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Bradshaw, A. L., & Poling, A. (1991). Choice by rats for enriched versus standard home cages: Plastic pipes, wood platforms, wood chips, and paper towels as enrichment items. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 55, 245-250.
2. Burns, R. A., & Griner, S. E. (1993). Single-alternation patterning in sated, sucrose-rewarded rats. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 35-36.
3. Burns, R. A., Ziropadja, L., & Djuric, V. (1984). Effects of liquid sucrose reward reduction on the performance of deprived and nonde-prived rats. Journal of General Psychology, 110, 223-228.
4. Chmiel, D. J., & Noonan, M. (1996). Preference of laboratory rats for potentially enriching stimulus objects. Laboratory Animal, 30, 97-101.
5. Flaherty, C. F., Riley, E. P., & Spear, N. E. (1973). Effects of sucrose concentration and goal units on runway behavior in the rat. Learning & Motivation, 4, 163-175.
6. Hanmer, L. A. (2008). Rats' interactions with enrichment objects are naturally rewarding: A study of object preference and reward processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Reading, England.
7. Heizmann, V., Jonas, I., Hirschenauer, K., & Havelec, L. (1998). Choice tests with groups of mice: Nestbox, nesting material and tubes as enrichment items for laboratory mice. Journal of Experimental Animal Science, 39, 43-60.
8. Ikemoto, S., & Panksepp, J. (1996). Dissociations between appetitive and consummatory responses by pharmacological manipulations of reward- relevant brain regions. Behavioral Neuroscience, 110, 331-345.
9. Nencini, P., Graziani, M., & Valeri, P. (1991). Dapiprazol prevents U50,488H-mediated suppression of preparatory components of drinking behavior in rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry, & Behavior, 40, 125-128.
10. Patterson-Kane, E. G. (2003). Shelter enrichment for rats. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science, 42, 46-48.
11. Sherwin, C. M., & Nicol, C. J. (1997). Behavioural demand functions of caged laboratory mice for additional space. Animal Behavior, 53, 67-74.
12. Sørensen, D. B., Krohn, T. C., Hansen, H., Ottesen, J., & Hansen, A. K. (2005). An ethological approach to housing requirements of golden hamsters, Mongolian gerbils and fat sand rats in the laboratory: A review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 94, 181-195.
13. Townsend, P. (1997). Use of in-cage shelters by laboratory rats. Animal Welfare, 6, 95-103.
14. Van de Weerd, H. A., Van Loo, P. L. P., Van Zutphen, L. F. M., Koolhaas, J. M., & Baumans, V. (1998a). Preferences for nest boxes as environmental enrichment for laboratory mice. Animal Welfare, 7, 11-25.
15. Van de Weerd, H. A., Van Loo, P. L. P., Van Zutphen, L. F. M., Koolhaas, J. M., & Baumans, V. (1998b). Strength of preference for nesting material as environmental enrichment for laboratory mice. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 55, 369-382.
16. Williams, C. M., Riddell, P. M., & Scott, L. (2008). Comparison of preferences for object properties in the rat using paired- and free-choice paradigms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 112, 146-157.