Response to Novelty Correlates with Learning Rate in a Go/No-Go Task in Göttingen Minipigs
Novelty-seeking and harm-avoidance personality traits influence Go/No-go (GNG) learning in humans. Animal studies have also indicated a link between response to novelty and spatial discrimination learning. In the present study, we test the hypothesis that learning rate in a GNG task correlates with...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2005-01-01
|
| Series: | Neural Plasticity |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/NP.2005.341 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832564536090034176 |
|---|---|
| author | Nanna Marie Lind Anette Moustgaard |
| author_facet | Nanna Marie Lind Anette Moustgaard |
| author_sort | Nanna Marie Lind |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Novelty-seeking and harm-avoidance personality traits influence Go/No-go (GNG) learning in humans. Animal studies have also indicated a link between response to novelty and spatial discrimination learning. In the present study, we test the hypothesis that learning rate in a GNG task correlates with the behavioral response of Göttingen minipigs to novelty. In a group of 12 minipigs of mixed genders, response to novelty was measured by numbers of contacts with a novel object, and the total duration of exploration of the novel object. These parameters were correlated to individual learning rate in a GNG task. The number of sessions to reach criterion in the GNG task correlated significantly with the number of contacts to a novel object (r = 0.70, p = 0.03), but not with the duration of object exploration (r = 0.29, p = 0.41). Thus, pigs with a low behavioral response to novelty learned the GNG task faster than did pigs with a strong behavioral response to novelty, indicated by the tendency to approach novel objects. We hypothesize that the critical factor in this relation is difference in emotional reactivity rather than difference in motivation for exploration. In conclusion, in addition to ‘cognitive’ ability, ‘temperamental’ factors are likely to influence learning in individual pigs. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-5d874315420a4a4eaaf5012ad8b7ffdf |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-5904 1687-5443 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2005-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Neural Plasticity |
| spelling | doaj-art-5d874315420a4a4eaaf5012ad8b7ffdf2025-02-03T01:10:48ZengWileyNeural Plasticity2090-59041687-54432005-01-0112434134510.1155/NP.2005.341Response to Novelty Correlates with Learning Rate in a Go/No-Go Task in Göttingen MinipigsNanna Marie Lind0Anette Moustgaard1Department of Psychiatry, H:S Bispebjerg, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, Copenhagen, NV, DenmarkDepartment of Psychiatry, H:S Bispebjerg, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, Copenhagen, NV, DenmarkNovelty-seeking and harm-avoidance personality traits influence Go/No-go (GNG) learning in humans. Animal studies have also indicated a link between response to novelty and spatial discrimination learning. In the present study, we test the hypothesis that learning rate in a GNG task correlates with the behavioral response of Göttingen minipigs to novelty. In a group of 12 minipigs of mixed genders, response to novelty was measured by numbers of contacts with a novel object, and the total duration of exploration of the novel object. These parameters were correlated to individual learning rate in a GNG task. The number of sessions to reach criterion in the GNG task correlated significantly with the number of contacts to a novel object (r = 0.70, p = 0.03), but not with the duration of object exploration (r = 0.29, p = 0.41). Thus, pigs with a low behavioral response to novelty learned the GNG task faster than did pigs with a strong behavioral response to novelty, indicated by the tendency to approach novel objects. We hypothesize that the critical factor in this relation is difference in emotional reactivity rather than difference in motivation for exploration. In conclusion, in addition to ‘cognitive’ ability, ‘temperamental’ factors are likely to influence learning in individual pigs.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/NP.2005.341 |
| spellingShingle | Nanna Marie Lind Anette Moustgaard Response to Novelty Correlates with Learning Rate in a Go/No-Go Task in Göttingen Minipigs Neural Plasticity |
| title | Response to Novelty Correlates with Learning Rate in a Go/No-Go Task in Göttingen Minipigs |
| title_full | Response to Novelty Correlates with Learning Rate in a Go/No-Go Task in Göttingen Minipigs |
| title_fullStr | Response to Novelty Correlates with Learning Rate in a Go/No-Go Task in Göttingen Minipigs |
| title_full_unstemmed | Response to Novelty Correlates with Learning Rate in a Go/No-Go Task in Göttingen Minipigs |
| title_short | Response to Novelty Correlates with Learning Rate in a Go/No-Go Task in Göttingen Minipigs |
| title_sort | response to novelty correlates with learning rate in a go no go task in gottingen minipigs |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/NP.2005.341 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nannamarielind responsetonoveltycorrelateswithlearningrateinagonogotaskingottingenminipigs AT anettemoustgaard responsetonoveltycorrelateswithlearningrateinagonogotaskingottingenminipigs |