Acoustic startle and fear‐potentiated startle in rats selectively bred for fast and slow kindling rates: relation to monoamine activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The acoustic startle response, prepulse inhibition, fear-potentiated startle and monoamine activity induced by either, a novel stimulus or a cue previously paired with foot-shock (fear-conditioning), were assessed in rats selectively bred for differences in amygdala excitability (Fast vs. Slow kindling epileptogenesis). Comorbid differences of anxiety, which were dependent both on the rats' behavioural style and the kind of stressor, also characterized these strains. In the present investigation, Slow rats exhibited a greater startle reflex to noise relative to Fast rats, suggesting differences in generalized anxiety, but similar rates of startle habituation and prepulse inhibition. The fear-potentiated startle, however, was greater in Fast rats. When movement of the rat was restricted in a new environment, presentation of a novel stimulus (light) increased norepinephrine, dopamine and/or serotonin activity in brain regions typically associated with stressors (e.g. locus coeruleus, paraventricular hypothalamic nucleus). Generally, these effects were more pronounced in Fast rats, and norepinephrine utilization in the central amygdala was particularly highlighted in response to a conditioned fear stimulus. Thus, while generalized anxiety appeared greater in Slow rats, behavioural and central neurochemical reactivity in response to novel stimuli and to fear-eliciting stimuli, was greater in Fast rats. Similarly, basal dopamine activity in the prefrontal cortex was greater in Fast rats, but dopamine utilization elicited by a novel stimulus was more pronounced in Slow rats. This suggested that relative to Slow rats, dopamine neurons in prefrontal cortex of Fast rats do not react normally to environmental stimuli, and this phenomenon could lead to disturbances of attention or impulsivity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".