Advertisement

Behavior Genetics

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 155–162 | Cite as

Genetic differences in susceptibility of rats to the immobility reflex (“Animal hypnosis”)

  • C. P. McGraw
  • W. R. Klemm
Article

Abstract

Several lines of evidence suggested that genetic factors influenced immobility reflex (IR) behavior, known commonly as “animal hypnosis,” a relatively unresponsive state of reversible immobility. Genetic influence was tested by comparing the susceptibility of two well-established strains of rats (Tryon) that had been developed for “maze brightness” (TMB) and “maze dullness” (TMD). The spontaneous durations of IR in TMB rats averaged approximately double those of TMD rats, and the time required to induce the state in TMB rats was significantly shorter. Correlated with the high IR susceptibility of the TMB rats was a pronounced lack of exploration in a novel environment. As another test of the hypothesis, selective inbreeding of Wistar rats led to the development of two strains, one highly susceptible and the other relatively insusceptible in the third and fourth generations. Testing revealed statistically significant differences between the two strains in terms of average duration of IR, average induction time, the percentage of susceptibility, the percentage which met the criteria for a high degree of susceptibility, and the percentage in each strain which were insusceptible.

Keywords

Genetic Factor Genetic Difference Average Duration Genetic Influence Fourth Generation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. DeFries, J. C. (1967). Quantitative genetics and behavior: Overview and perspective. In Hirsch, J. (ed.),Behavior-Genetic Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 322–339.Google Scholar
  2. Gallup, G. C., Jr., Nash, R. F., Potter, R. J., and Donega, N. H. (1970a). Effects of varying conditions of fear on immobility reactions in domestic chickens (Gallus gallus).J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 73: 442–445.Google Scholar
  3. Gallup, G. C., Jr., Creekmore, H. S., and Hill, W. E., III (1970b). Shock-enhanced immobility reactions in chickens: Support for the fear hypothesis.Psychol. Rec. 20: 243–245.Google Scholar
  4. Gallup, G. C., Jr., Nash, R. F., and Ellison, A. L., Jr. (1971). Tonic immobility as a reaction to predation: Artificial eyes as a fear stimulus for chickens.Psychon. Sci. 23: 79–80.Google Scholar
  5. Graves, E. (1936). Interrelationships in performances in the albino rat.J. Comp. Psychol. 22: 179–186.Google Scholar
  6. Harris, R. E. (1940). An analysis of the maze learning scores of bright and dull rats with reference to motivational factors.Psychol. Rec. 4: 130–136.Google Scholar
  7. Hoskovec, J., and Svorad, D. (1969). The relationship between human and animal hypnosis.Am. J. Clin. Hypnosis 11: 180–182.Google Scholar
  8. Klemm, W. R. (1971). Neurophysiologic studies of the immobility reflex (“animal hypnosis”). In Ehrenpreis, S., and Solnitsky, O. C. (eds.),Neurosciences Research, Vol. 4, Academic Press, New York, pp. 165–212.Google Scholar
  9. Krech, D., Rosenzweig, M. R., and Bennett, E. L. (1969). Effects of environment complexity and training on brain chemistry.J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 53: 509–519.Google Scholar
  10. Kruse, M. (1941). Food satiation curves for maze-bright and maze-dull rats.J. Comp. Psychol. 31: 13–21.Google Scholar
  11. McGaugh, I. L. (1961). Facilitative and disruptive effects of strychnine sulphate on maze learning.Psychol. Rep. 8: 99–104.Google Scholar
  12. McGraw, C. P., and Klemm, W. R. (1969). Mechanisms of the immobility reflex (“animal hypnosis”). III. Neocortical inhibition in rats.Commun. Behav. Biol. 3: 53–59.Google Scholar
  13. Morgan, A. H., Hilgard, E. R., and Davert, E. C. (1970). The heritability of hypnotic susceptibility of twins: A preliminary report.Behav. Genet. 1: 213–224.Google Scholar
  14. Ratner, S. C. (1967). Comparative aspects of hypnosis. InHandbook of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, Macmillan, New York, pp. 580–587.Google Scholar
  15. Svorad, D. (1957). “Animal hypnosis” (Totstellreflex) as experimental model for psychiatry.Arch. Neurol. Psychiat. 77: 533–539.Google Scholar
  16. Völgyesi, F. A. (1966).Hypnosis of Man and Animals, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  17. Welner, A., Ben-Ishay, D., Groen, J. J., and Dahl, L. K. (1968). Behavior patterns and sensitivity to experimental hypertension in rats.Proc. Soc. Exptl. Biol. Med. 129: 886–890.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. P. McGraw
    • 1
  • W. R. Klemm
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of Texas Medical BranchGalveston
  2. 2.Department of BiologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station

Personalised recommendations