Stern S, Laties V G
Department of Biophysies, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, New York.
Bioelectromagnetics. 1989;10(1):99-109. doi: 10.1002/bem.2250100110.
Rats were exposed to two procedures which enabled them to press a lever to turn off a 90 or 100 kV/m 60-Hz electric field or, later in the study, illumination from an incandescent lamp. Under one procedure, a response turned off the stimulus for a fixed duration, after which the stimulus was turned on again. A response during the off-period restarted the fixed duration. None of the rats turned the field off reliably. Next, under an alternative procedure, pressing one lever turned the field off; pressing the other lever turned it back on; responding under those conditions differed little from that seen at 0 kV/m. Under both procedures, when illumination from an incandescent lamp served as the stimulus, each rat did turn the stimulus off, and performances varied with stimulus intensity. The results show that a 100 kV/m 60-Hz electric field is not sufficient to function as an aversive stimulus under two procedures where illumination from a lamp does function as an aversive stimulus.
将大鼠暴露于两种实验程序中,这使它们能够按压杠杆来关闭90或100 kV/m的60赫兹电场,或者在研究后期,关闭白炽灯的照明。在一种实验程序下,一次反应会在固定时长内关闭刺激,之后刺激会再次开启。在关闭期内的一次反应会重新开始固定时长。没有一只大鼠能可靠地关闭电场。接下来,在另一种实验程序下,按压一个杠杆会关闭电场;按压另一个杠杆会重新开启电场;在这些条件下的反应与在0 kV/m时观察到的反应几乎没有差异。在两种实验程序下,当白炽灯的照明作为刺激时,每只大鼠确实会关闭刺激,并且表现会随刺激强度而变化。结果表明,在两种实验程序中,100 kV/m的60赫兹电场不足以作为一种厌恶刺激起作用,而在这两种程序中,灯光照明却能作为厌恶刺激起作用。