Abstract
Recent reports have questioned the exclusive role of cathodal influences in the mediation of intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS) behavior. The present study examined whether variation of anodal locus affected rat hypothalamic ICSS behavior. The temporal distance (C-C interval) between succeeding monophasic pulse pairs was held constant, while the temporal distance (C-T interval) between the two first and second pulses was systematically varied in each of two anodal conditions: (1) one pole of a bipolar electrode served as cathode and the other as anode (bipolar condition), and (2) one pole of a bipolar electrode served as cathode and a cortical screw served as anode (monopolar condition). The monopolar condition produced significantly higher ICSS response rates than the bipolar condition at short (0.5–1.0 msec) C-T intervals. These data suggest that anodal placement can influence ICSS responsivity, possibly through physiological mechanisms such as size of the stimulation field or anodal hyperpolarization.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference Note
Steiner, s. S., Bodnar, R. J. Ackermann, R. F., Nelson, W. T., & Ellman, S. J. Intracranial self-stimulation site specificity: The myth ofcurrent spread. Submitted for publication.
References
Deutsch, J. A. Behavioral measurement of the neural refractory period and its application to intracranial self-stimulation. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1964, 58, 1–9.
Gallistel, C. R. The incentive of brain-stimulation reward. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1969, 69, 713–721.
German, D. C., & Bowden, D. M. Catecholamine systems as the neural substrate for intracranial self-stimulation. Brain Research, 1974, 73, 381–419.
German, D. C., & Holloway, F. A. Behaviorally determined neurophysiological properties of MFB self-stimulation fibers. Physiology and Behavior, 1972, 9, 823–829.
Kluver, H., & Barrera, E. A method for combined staining of cells and fibers in the nervous system. Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology, 1953, 12, 400–403.
König, J. F. R., & Klippel, R. A. The rat brain: Astereotaxic atlas. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1963.
Ranck, J. B. Which elements are excited in electrical stimulation of mammalian central nervous system: A review. Brain Research, 1975, 98, 417–440.
Rolls, E. T. Absolute refractory period of neurons involved in MFB self-stimulation. Physiology and Behavior, 1971, 7, 311–315.
Smith, N., & Coons, E. E. Temporal summation and refractoriness in hypothalamic reward neurons as measured by self-stimulation behavior. Science, 1970, 169, 782–785.
Szabo, I. Path neuron system of medial forebrain bundle as a possible substrate for hypothalamic self-stimulation. Physiology and Behavior, 1973, 10, 315–328.
Szabo, I., Lenard, L., & Kosaras, B. Drive decay theory of self-stimulation: Refractory periods and axon diameters in hypothalamic reward loci. Physiology and Behavior, 1974, 12, 329–343.
Valenstein, E. S. Problems of measurement and interpretation with reinforcing brain stimulation. Psychological Review, 1964, 71, 415–437.
Yeomans, J. S. Quantitative measurement of neural post-stimulation excitability with behavioral methods. Physiology and Behavior, 1975, 15, 593–602.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by a NIDA grant to S.S.S., and a CUNY grant to S.J.E.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bodnar, R.J., Steiner, S.S., Brutus, M. et al. Hypothalamic self-stimulation differs as a function of anodal locus. Psychobiology 6, 48–52 (1978). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03326690
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03326690