Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Animal topics 2 Effects of Learned helplessness (presentation -->…

- - - - 4 groups
        --> pretreatment in clear plastic tubes with tail sticking out where electrode attached, sound masked by fan etc etc
        
        group 1
        --> no signal + inescapable shock
        
        Group C
        --> Compound cessation signal 3 seconds before end + inescapable shock
        --> 2000hz tone + blackout of tube light
        --> yoked group to show that is is the signal that drives the change
        
        Group RAN
        --> randomly timed compound signal + inescapable shock
        --> signal likely to occur in any 3 second duration of total shock duration
        ---> to exclude compound signal drives the changes and it is really the signaling of the shock end that is driving the change
        
        Group R
        --> control group just restrained
      - escape performance test
        ---> 24 hrs later
        ---> shuttle box
        
        FR-1 trials
        --> i cross to the other side turns of shock
        --> 5 trials each
        
        FR-2 trials
        --> cross to the other side and back to turn of shock
        --> 25 trials each
        
        shock terminated automatically after 40s shock onset
    - - FR1 trials
        --> no signif difference between groups
      - FR2 trials
        --> Group 1 and RND = significantly higher escape latencies than Group C and R (control group and predictive compount cessation cue)
        --> group C and control R = not signif different from each other but very low uninhibited escape latencies
    - - contradicts previous believe that escape deficits stem form uncontrollable event
        --> because adding the cessation stimulus doesnt make the shocks more controlable but still alleviates teh escape defficieny
        --> rather in line with that escape deficit stems form fear of not being able to escape the shock and the cessation signal telling them it will stop soon reduces the fear from that point on, thus reducing the effect of the shock and thus the escape deficit
        
        furthermore thsi effect was completely because of the cessation signal corretly indicationg the end of shocks as random signals didnt have such an effect :) !!
  - - - 4 groups
        
        Group E
        --> escapable tail shock
        -----------> turned off after 360 degree spin of wheel (1 sec delay of valid spin)
        
        Group Y
        --> yoked inescapable tail shock
        
        Group YC
        ---> Yoked , inescapable, cessation signal
        ---> compound signal 1 second before shock termination
        
        Group R
        ---> restraint in wheel-turn chamber
      - escape deficit test
        --> 24 h later
        --> shuttle box
    - - FR1 trials
        --> no signif difference between groups
      - FR2 trials
        --> Group Y = significantly higher escape latencies than Group YC, E and R (control group and predictive compount cessation cue and Escapeable shock)
        --> group E and control R = not signif different from each other But significantly lower latency than group YC
  - - - 6 groups (8 rats each)
        
        Group I
        --> variable-duration inescapable tail shocks
        
        Group C
        --> inescapable shock with a cessation signal 3 sec before ending
        
        Group C-AS #
        
        Group B
        ---> inescapable shock followed by a safety signal (backward conditioning) immediately after ending for 3 seconds
        ---> signaled shock free period
        
        Group B-AS
        
        Group R
        ---> restraint in tubes
      - escape deficit test
        --> 24 h later
        --> shuttle box
    - - FR1 trials
        --> no signif difference between groups
      - FR2 trials
        --> Group I and B-AS = significantly higher escape latencies than other groups and not signif different from each other
        --> Groups C, C-AS, B = not signif different from each other But significantly lower latency than group I and B-AS
        ---> shows that when ITI (inter trial intervals) = long both backward conditioning and cessation signal equally effectie, but when ITI = short backward conditioning = as bad as just inescapable shock ( then again you cant really compare the two because backward signal should signal safe period but it doesnt so no association is learnt lol )
      - LIMITATIONS
        
        ---> B-AS shock after 2 seconds of safety signal
        --> C-AS shock after 5 seconds after cessation signal
        ---> sure done so that both have shock after 5 seconds but.. man wtf
        --> would have been the other way round if delays were switched 100%!! as seen before where signal was jsut 1.2 to 1.8 secs isntead of 3 and it negated the effect :/
        --->Trauner & Minor, 1989 found it would still protect lol
  - - - 6 groups (8 rats each)
        
        Group I
        --> variable-duration inescapable tail shocks
        
        Group C
        --> inescapable shock with a cessation signal 3 sec before ending
        
        Group C-AS
        
        Group B
        ---> inescapable shock followed by a safety signal (backward conditioning) immediately after ending for 3 seconds
        ---> signaled shock free period
        
        Group B-AS
        
        Group R
        ---> restraint in tubes
      - escape deficit test
        --> 24 h later
        --> shuttle box
    - - FR1 trials
        --> no signif difference between groups
      - FR2 trials
        --> Group I and B-AS = significantly higher escape latencies than other groups and not signif different from each other
        --> Groups C, C-AS, B = not signif different from each other But significantly lower latency than group I and B-AS
        ---> shows that when ITI long both backward conditioning and cessation signal equally effectie, but when ITI = short backward conditioning = as bad as just inescapable shock ( then again you cant really compare the two because backward signal should signal safe period but it doesnt so no association is learnt lol )
      - LIMITATIONS
        
        ---> B-AS shock after 2 seconds of safety signal
        --> C-AS shock after 5 seconds after cessation signal
        ---> sure done so that both have shock after 5 seconds but.. man wtf
        --> would have been the other way round if delays were switched 100%!! as seen before where signal was jsut 1.2 to 1.8 secs isntead of 3 and it negated the effect :/
        --->Trauner & Minor, 1989 found it would still protect lol