Hawkins Robert D, Cohen Tracey E, Kandel Eric R
Center for Neurobiology and Behavior, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032, USA.
Learn Mem. 2006 May-Jun;13(3):397-403. doi: 10.1101/lm.49706. Epub 2006 May 16.
Dishabituation has been thought to be due either to reversal of the process of habituation or to a second process equivalent to sensitization superimposed on habituation. One way to address this question is by testing whether dishabituation and sensitization can be dissociated. Previous studies using this approach in Aplysia have come to different conclusions about the nature of dishabituation, perhaps because those studies differed in many respects, including (1) whether they also observed transient behavioral inhibition, and (2) whether they used test stimuli that activated the LE siphon sensory neurons or as yet unidentified sensory neurons. To attempt to resolve the apparent contradictions between the previous studies, we have explored the importance of these two factors by performing a parametric study of dishabituation and sensitization of gill withdrawal in a simplified preparation that does not exhibit transient behavioral inhibition, using two different test stimuli that are known to activate the LE (Touch) or unidentified (Not Touch) sensory neurons. We find that dishabituation and sensitization in this preparation have similar time courses and generally similar functions of shock intensity. However, under one condition, with the Not Touch stimulus 2.5 min after the shock, dishabituation has a reverse effect of shock intensity. Additional analyses suggest that dishabituation with the Not Touch stimulus 2.5 min after the shock is due to reversal of habituation, whereas 12.5 min after the shock, dishabituation is due to superimposed sensitization. These results thus suggest that dishabituation may involve either process in the same preparation, and begin to define the conditions that favor one or the other.
去习惯化被认为要么是由于习惯化过程的逆转,要么是由于叠加在习惯化之上的等同于敏感化的第二个过程。解决这个问题的一种方法是测试去习惯化和敏感化是否可以分离。以前在海兔中使用这种方法的研究对去习惯化的本质得出了不同的结论,可能是因为这些研究在许多方面存在差异,包括:(1)它们是否也观察到短暂的行为抑制;(2)它们是否使用激活LE虹吸感觉神经元或尚未确定的感觉神经元的测试刺激。为了试图解决先前研究之间明显的矛盾,我们通过在一个不表现出短暂行为抑制的简化准备中,对鳃收缩的去习惯化和敏感化进行参数研究,使用两种已知能激活LE(触摸)或未确定(非触摸)感觉神经元的不同测试刺激,探讨了这两个因素的重要性。我们发现,在这个准备中,去习惯化和敏感化具有相似的时间进程,并且通常具有相似的休克强度功能。然而,在一种情况下,在休克后2.5分钟使用非触摸刺激,去习惯化对休克强度有相反的影响。进一步的分析表明,休克后2.5分钟使用非触摸刺激的去习惯化是由于习惯化的逆转,而休克后12.5分钟,去习惯化是由于叠加的敏感化。因此,这些结果表明,在同一准备中,去习惯化可能涉及这两个过程中的任何一个,并开始确定有利于其中一个或另一个的条件。