Neglecting to protect: DCS lesions disrupt food
protection behavior organization.
1Blankenship,
P.A., 1Wolf, C. N., 2Cheatwood, J.L., & 1Wallace, D.G.
1Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA
2Department of Anatomy, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL USA
B
C
120
2000
1500
1000
500
C
C
Avg. Number of Thefts
Total Behaviors
Dodger
Robber
100
Sham
Apparatus
10
20
30
60
40
Dodger
Robber
Speed (cm/s)
50
50
D
40
15
10
0
0
S2
S3
S4
10
20
30
40
50
Frames (approx 1/30th of a sec)
Number of Behaviors
25
Dodges
Braces
15
4
3
2
1
S4
S5
5
4
3
2
1
0
Right
Left
Right
•
Unilateral DCS lesions influenced sensorimotor factors related to
food protection behavior.
• DCS rats exhibited lateralized impairments in their ability to
protect the food item from theft.
•
The food protection task may provide an novel tool to dissociate
neural systems that mediate temporal and spatial processing.
*
40
20
S2
S3
S4
S5
B
Dodges
Braces
Brace
C
•
3
•
2
•
20
1
•
15
10
0
Sham
5
0
Dodge
References
4
5
25
Number of Behaviors
Peak Speed (cm/s)
Speed (cm/s)
60
0
DCS
5
D
6
Unilateral DCS lesions influenced temporal factors related to
food protection behavior.
• DCS rats transitioned between food protection behaviors later
than control animals
•
B
Sham
DCS
Sham
S3
10
100
0
S2
5
S1
80
20
C
Right
•
*
20
0
40
S1
*
Left
A
Figure 4: The graphs below represent each group’s average peak
speed during open field (A) and peak speeds associated with each
type of food protection behavior (B).
60
*
*
Figure 7: The graphs represent the behavioral transition by sample
for sham (A) and DCS (B) animals. The average sample in which
behavioral transitions occurred is plotted for both groups (C). DCS
group transitioned significantly later than the sham group.
Results
A
1
Unilateral DCS lesions did not result in motivational deficits.
• No group differences were observed in the total distance
traveled during Open Field
• No group differences were observed in the time it took to
consume the food item.
• Groups exhibited similar amounts of behaviors exhibited
during food protection sessions
20
0
80
S5
2
•
B
10
5
3
Conclusions
15
5
4
Right
6
Left
Sham
DCS
30
0
*
0
DCS
20
S1
10
120
2
25
20
Frames (approx 1/30th of a sec)
Figure 1: A photograph of the apparatus used in the current
study.
A
30
0
C
4
Sham
Number of Braces
Dodger Body Movement
Dodger Head Movement
Dodger Head Start
Robber Body Movement
Robber Head Movement
Robber Head Start
D
6
Sham
DCS
0
1
Left
8
DCS
25
10
2
DCS
B
20
3
5
0
Figure 6: The graphs shown below represent total dodges (A) and
braces (B) by sample for the control and DCS animals. DCS animals
exhibited significantly fewer braces during samples 1-4.
40
4
B
6
0
0
Transition (sample)
Speed (cm/s)
50
40
10
0
Number of Dodges
A
60
Sham
50
60
80
DCS
200
Figure 3: The figures below represent the topographic and
kinematic characteristics of typical dodging (A,B) and bracing (C,D)
behaviors.
5
A
Control
DCS
0
Sham
Food Protection Behaviors
6
20
150
Eighteen female Long-Evans rats received unilateral infusions of
NMDA (n=8) or saline (n=10) into the DCS. Following surgery,
rats served as dodgers in the food protection task. During the
food protection task, two rats were placed in a circular arena, the
dodger rat was given a food item and a conspecific (robber)
attempted to steal the food item. In order to protect the food
item, the dodger engaged in two distinct behaviors: 1) a dodge,
or large lateral movement away from the robber in which the
food item is moved from the forelimbs to the mouth, or 2) a
brace, a smaller lateral movement in which the food item
remains in the forelimbs and the animal pivots about their hind
limbs. Successful protection of the food item depends on
accurate egocentric processing of the approaching robber;
whereas the propensity of the dodger to elicit one behavior over
another has been posited to depend on the estimated time to
consume the food item (Whishaw & Gorny, 1994; Wallace et al.,
2006; Martin et al., 2008). The current study uses the food
protection task to investigate the effects of unilateral DCS
lesions on the organization of food protection behavior.
100
0
Methods
B
140
Distance b/t Noses (cm)
A
2500
Distance b/t Noses Braces (cm)
B
A
Avg. Number of Thefts
A
Figure 8: Total thefts are plotted by side for control and DCS rats (A).
The average distance between noses of dodger and robber at the
start of the food protection behavior is plotted for both group relative
side of approach (B) and plotted individually for dodges (C) and
braces (D).
Distance b/t Noses Dodges (cm)
Figure 2:Coronal sections stained with DAPI , a nuclear marker
(A); NeuN, a neuronal marker (B); and a combined image (C) are
provided for a representative DCS animal.
Distance Traveled (cm)
Multimodal neglect is a spatial impairment characterized by an
inability to detect stimuli or direct movement to one side of the
body (Reep et al., 2004). The dorsocentral striatum (DCS) has
been shown to be an important component of a corticostriatal
network responsible for egocentric processing (Corwin et al.,
1986; Reep & Corwin, 1999). The food protection task has been
developed that assesses spatial processing in the egocentric
reference frame (Whishaw & Tomie, 1988). The current study
evaluated the role of the DCS in food protection behavior. Both
egocentric and temporal information processing have been shown
to contribute to the organization of food protection behavior.
Egocentric processing has been shown to influence the ability to
detect an incoming conspecific and successfully protect a food
item. Temporal processing has been shown to influence the
transition food protection behaviors.
Histology
Time to Consume (sec)
Introduction
Figure 5: The graphs below represent the total distance traveled
during open field(A), the average time it took to consume a food
pellet (B),each group’s total number of behaviors (C), and the
average number of thefts for each group (D). No significant group
differences were observed in these measures.
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
DCS
•
•
Corwin, J.V., Kanter, S., Watson, R.T., Heilman, K.M., Valenstein, E., & Hashimoto, A. (1986).
Apomorphine has a therapeutic effect on neglect produced by unilateral dorsomedial prefrontal cortex
lesions in rats. Experimental Neurology, 94: 683-698.
Martin, M.M., Winter, S.S., Cheatwood, J.L., Carter, L.A., Jones, J.L., Weathered, S.L., Wagner, S.J.,
Wallace, D.G., (2008). Organization of food protection behavior is differentially influenced by 192 IgGsaporin lesions of either the medial septum or the nucleus basalis magnocellularis. Brain Research.
1241, 122-135.
Reep, R.L., & Corwin, J.V. (1999). Topographic organization of the striatal and thalamic connections of
rat medial agranular cortex. Brain Research, 43-52.
Reep, R.L., Corwin, J.V., Cheatwood, J.L., Van Vleet, T.M., Heilman, K.M., Watson, R.T,(2004). A
rodent model for investigating the neurobiology of contralateral neglect. Cognitive and Behavioral
Neurology. 17 (4), 191-194.
Wallace, D.G., Wallace, P.S., Field, E., Whishaw, I.Q., (2006). Pharmacological manipulations of food
protection behavior in rats: evidence for dopaminergic contributions to time perception during a natural
behavior. Brain Research. 1112 (1), 213-221.
Whishaw, I.Q., Tomie, J.A., (1988). Food wrenching and dodging: a neuro-ethological test of cortical
and dopaminergic contributions to sensorimotor behavior in the rat. Behavioral Neuroscience. 102 (1),
110-123.
Whishaw, I.Q., Gorny, B.P., (1994). Food wrenching and dodging: eating time estimates influence
dodge probability and amplitude. Aggressive Behavior. 20, 35-47.