1. Age and Sex Influences on
Crystallized, Fluid, and
General Intelligence in Mice
Fred Gaudios, Henya Grossman
Greg Hale, Stefan Kolata, Kenneth Light, Louis
D. Matzel, and Melissa Zappulla
David A. Townsend
Department of Psychology
Rutgers University
2. Crystallized Intelligence (Gc)
In humans: Verbal IQ (Cattell 1971)
WAIS: arithmetic, vocabulary, information,
comprehension
Differences in past learning
Operationalize in mice?
Beatty (1985) trained on RAM for entire life
(3-26 months)
3. Age and Sex Influences on
Crystallized, Fluid, and
General Intelligence in Mice
David A Townsend
Department of Psychology
Rutgers University
4. Fluid Intelligence (Gf)
The ability to form or construct
representation of complex information
(Lohman 1988)
Representations must be accurate,
detailed, and durable (Just 1986)
Operations can be performed on the
representations
“ the ability to solve novel abstract
problems, to see relationships” ( Cattell)
5. “ the ability to solve novel abstract
problems, to see relationships” ( Cattell)
Intelligence = reasoning ability
Cattell’s Gf measures reasoning ability
In Humans all performance on all IQ tests
correlate (Spearman 1929, Jenson 1980) :
revealing a general factor…….
6. “ the ability to solve novel abstract problems, to see relationships
Gf is General Intelligence
Binet and Simon (1905): the ability to judge well,
to understand well, to reason well.
Terman (1916): the capacity to form concepts and
to grasp their significance.
Wechsler (1939): the aggregate or global capacity
of the individual to act purposefully, to think
rationally, and to deal effectively with the
environment.
Gardner (1986): the ability or skill to solve
problems or to fashion products which are valued
within one or more cultural settings.
7. Age and Sex Influences on
Fluid, and General
Intelligence in Mice
David A. Townsend
Department of Psychology
Rutgers University
8. General Intelligence
To be intelligent is to
understand, and to
understand means to be
aware of relationships
ability to adapt
effectively to the
environment, either by
making a change in
oneself or by changing
the environment or
finding a new one
(Encyclopedia
Britannica)
9. General Intelligence
A general reasoning capacity
useful in problem-solving tasks of
all kinds the aggregate or
(Kline 1991),
global capacity of the individual to
act purposefully and deal
effectively with the environment
( Wechsler 1944)
10. General Intelligence
A. General Mental Ability (“g”)
- Spearman (1904,1920s)
- “g” = one core ability running through all
cognitive abilities
- “g” = mental energy individuals bring to any
intellectual task
- “g” = “mental engine”
- called “Two Factor Theory”
score = g + S (0r Gf + Gc)
11. A. General Learning Ability
Examples of measures of “g”:
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale
Raven Progressive Matrices
Cattell Culture Fair Intelligence Test
Evidence for the existence of “g”:
1. many cognitive ability tests correlate with each other
2. even different types of tests correlate
3. measures of “g” correlate more highly with complex
criteria
12. Group Differences
in General
Intelligence
Individual
Differences in
General
Intelligence
13. Group Differences in General
Intelligence
Experimental Psychology
Differences between
group means
Normal vs. Disease state
Wildtype vs. Knockouts
14. Individual differences in General
Intelligence
Differential Psychology
Variation amongst individuals
Nature vs. Nurture
Molecular mechanisms of
intelligence
15. Age and Sex Influences on
General Intelligence in Mice
David A. Townsend
Department of Psychology
Rutgers University
16. Animal Models of Intelligence:
Control of genotype
Control of experience
Control of environment
Control of disease
Control of diet
Ability to explore neurobiological
processes
17. The Efficacy of
Synaptic
Transmission
Between Sensory
Receptors Predicts
the Capacity for
Behavioral
Learning in
Individual Animals
18. A “general” influence on human
intelligence test performance is
the single most dominant
cognitive trait ever identified.
Robert Plomin,
Nature, 1999
19. CONSTRUCTION OF A TEST BATTERY
Tasks should reflect a range of fundamental processes that
all animals can master (i.e., Elemental Cognitive Tasks, or
ECTs).
Task Diversity: Tasks should impinge on distinct
information processing strategies, sensory, motor,
motivational, and brain systems.
Transfer of Learning between tasks should be minimized.
Time Constraints: Test battery must be sufficiently short so
to negate the impact of differential effects of aging.
Sensitivity to Variations in Learning: Animals are tested in
acquisition, thus insuring sensitivity to real differences
across animals and minimizing any impact of variations in
long-term memory.
20. Test Motor Organic
Process Reinforcer
Stimulus Requirement Deprivation
1. Lashley Maze operant approach egocentric/ ambulation food BioServ Pellet
visual (+)
2. Passive operant avoidance place passivity none noise/light
Avoidance (-)
3. Spatial operant escape extramaze/ swimming none water
Water Maze spatial navigation visual immersion
(-)
4. Odor discrimination olfactory ambulation food rice
Discrimination (+)
5. Fear association- auditory suppression water foot shock
Conditioning formation (-)
6. Reinforced pattern recognition Prior ambulation water cereal
Alternation choice / (+)
memory
7. Radial Arm operant approach/ prior choice/ ambulation food Novas Pellet
Maze spatial navigation WM/extra- (+)
maze/visual
8. Spatial operant approach/ extramaze/ ambulation food chocolate
Plus Maze spatial navigation visual (+)
21. Test Motor Organic
Process Reinforcer
Stimulus Requirement Deprivation
1. Lashley operant approach egocentric/ ambulation food BioServ
Maze visual Pellet
(+)
2. Passive operant avoidance place passivity none noise/light
Avoidance (-)
3. Spatial operant escape extramaze/ swimming none water
Water Maze spatial navigation visual immersion
(-)
4. Odor discrimination olfactory ambulation food rice
Discrimination (+)
5. Fear association- auditory suppression water foot shock
Conditioning formation (-)
6. Reinforced pattern recognition Prior ambulation water cereal
Alternation choice / (+)
memory
7. Radial Arm operant approach/ prior choice/ ambulation food Novas Pellet
Maze spatial navigation WM/extra- (+)
maze/visual
8. Spatial operant approach/ extramaze/ ambulation food chocolate
Plus Maze spatial navigation visual (+)
43. PRINCIPAL COMPONENT EXTRACTION
Loadings
Large First Factor: Lashley Maze .50
Passive Avoidance .68
Odor Discrimination .32
Fear Conditioning .30
Evidence for the existence of “g”:
Reinforced Alternation .73
Spatial Plus Maze .74
many cognitive ability tests Water Maze .30
correlate with each other
Open Field % Open .58
even different types of tests
correlate Open Field Activity -.19
Running Speed .17
Defecation .10
measures of “g” correlate more
Body Weight -.14
highly with complex criteria
Eigen Value 3.05
% total variance .29
44. Disassociations with General
Intelligence
Stress Reactivity
Fear and Emotionality
Experience and
Novelty Seeking
Working Memory
45. Variations in General Learning Abilities
vs.
Variations in Response to Stress
All tasks involve handling, and handling
is stressful.
Organic deprivation/aversive
reinforcers are stressful.
Individual animals vary in response to
stress.
46. Stress Reactivity
“the pattern of individual
differences in learning 120 30 r = .14, ns r = .71, p < .01
performance attributed to 100
n = 10
30
n = 11
general learning ability is not 20
20
regulated by/ due to individual 80
% Time in Open Arms
% Time in Open Arms
Corticosterone (ng/ml)
10
differences in stress reactivity, 60
10
and consequently, that stress 40 0 0
is not a determinant of general 20
learning abilities.“ 20 40 60 80 50 100 150 200
STRESS NO STRESS NO STRESS: Corticosterone (ng/ml) STRESS: Corticosterone (ng/ml)
no consistent relationship was The Role of Stress in
found between basal or stressed General Learning
corticosterone levels and animals’
tendency to enter the open Abilities (Grossman & Matzel)
quadrants of an open field or the
open arms of an elevated plus
maze, measures of exploratory
behavior
47. Disassociations with General
Intelligence
Stress Reactivity
Fear and Emotionality
Experience and Novelty Seeking
Working Memory
48. Fear and Emotionality
PRINCIPAL COMPONENT EXTRACTION
Common measures Loadings
used to quantify fear Lashley Maze
Passive Avoidance
.50
.68
or emotionality in Odor Discrimination
Fear Conditioning
.32
.30
Reinforced Alternation .73
animals were Spatial Plus Maze
Water Maze
.74
.30
unrelated to individual Open Field % Open .58
animals’ general Open Field Activity -.19
Running Speed .17
learning abilities Defecation
Body Weight
.10
-.14
The Propensity for Exploration Covaries Eigen Value 3.05
with General Learning Ability % total variance .29
and is Independent of Stress Reactivity,
Emotionality, and Behavioral Fitness
Louis D. Matzel, David A. Townsend,
Henya Grossman, Yu Ray Han, Gregory
Hale,
Kenneth Light, and Stefan Kolata
49. Disassociations of General
Intelligence
Stress Reactivity
Fear and Emotionality
Experience and Novelty Seeking
Working Memory
50. Effects of Adaptation to Novelty on General
Learning Abilities in Outbred Mice
Light and Matzel
Exploration does not drive learning abilities
Possibility that exploration and learning co-
vary
51. Is General Intelligence Dependent on
the Efficacy of WM?
Stress Reactivity
Fear and Emotionality
Experience and Novelty Seeking
Working Memory
53. Group Differences in General
Intelligence
Knockout/Heterozygous/
Wildtype
PEA-15
NrCam
Age and Sex
ADHD
Personality types
54. Age and Sex Influences on Learning
Human
Populations
AGE: SEX:
Decline in Fluid Do not differ in IQ
intelligence Spatial skills vs.
Impaired memory Verbal skills
Slower NCV Perceptual speed
Physiological Associative
decay memory
55. Methods:
SENSORY MOTOR / LEARNING TASKS:
Male and Female BALBc mice
Young (8 weeks) and Old (18+ months)
16 animals/ group
( young females, young males, aged females,
and aged males)
MEMORY TASKS:
8 animals per group
56. Methods:
Sensory/Motor task:
11 measures of behavioral fitness
12 measures of activity
10+ measures of stress reactivity
6 motivational measures
8 Learning Tasks:
4 Memory Tasks:
one STM, two LTM
57. Sensory motor tasks:
Open field exploration
Running wheel
Balance beam
Balance platform
Roto-Rod Suspension
Pain sensitivity
Screen hanging
Plus maze
Escape response
Light / dark preference
Body weight
58. Methods:
Sensory/Motor task:
11 measures of behavioral fitness
12 measures of activity
10+ measures of stress reactivity
6 motivational measures
8 Learning Tasks:
4 Memory Tasks:
one STM, two LTM
59. Methods:
Sensory/Motor task:
11 measures of behavioral fitness
12 measures of activity
10+ measures of stress reactivity
6 motivational measures
8 Learning Tasks:
4 Memory Tasks:
one WM, two LTM
63. Learning tasks results, Spatial:
Errors
Ram Aquisition
5
25
Trial vs Females
4
Trial vs Males
Trial vs OLD F 20
Errors to 7 correct choices
Trial vs OLD M
3
Errors
15
2
10
1
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 24h 6 7 8 9 10 0
1 2 3 4 5
Trials
64. Norman M. White
Multiple Parallel Memory Systems in the
Brain of the Rat
Different subtypes and systems of spatial
skills
Hippocampus Amygdala
Learned relationships about cues Acquisition of reward based responses
Water maze RAM, Win/Stay
65. Learning tasks results:
Fear conditioning
4
Young Females
Young Males
Aged Females
3 Aged Males
Ratio( Post/Pre)
2
1
0
66. Learning tasks results:
Fear conditioning
4
12
3 Fear asymptotic training
Licks8during fear training
training trials
Ratio( Post/Pre)
10
2 500
1
400
8
0
Mean # of licks
Post/pre
300
6
Young Females
200
Young Males
Aged Females 4
Aged Males 100
2
0
0
67. Conclusions:
Behavioral Fitness, Stress reactivity:
few differences, (weight related)
Learning:
Few Differences between groups
Age impairs H20 performance
Other Spatial tasks spared
Memory:
LTM: Few differences (age tends to impair odor discrimination)
WM: Males less impaired than females by working memory manipulation
68. Conclusions: General Learning Abilities:
Factor Scores
Variable
LASHLEY
Factor 1
.783981
Factor 2
.013342
Rankings
AVOID 505789 -.156728
50
Correlation Matrices
FEAR .787095 .162388
40
H2O -.284625 .208772
Factor Structure .061637
Average rank
30
WINSTAY .880633
Females
20
Males RAM -.104380 .729405
suggest no difference in1.585674 1.402243
overall
OLD F
OLD M
10 Explained
var.
0
differences in learning abilities .233707
Prop. total .264279
based on age/sex: but variability
differences in components used to
assess learning abilities
69. Why were the expected groups
differences not observed?
Inbred Mice (clones)
Mortality selection of aged mice (NIA mice)
Balb/c (blood work)
71. Our Knowledge and expertise may be
domain-specific, but the means by which
we become knowledgeable and expert may
be entirely general (Mackintosh 1998)
72. Memory tasks:
Long Term Memory:
Odor discrimination (30 days)
Lashley 3 maze (30 days)
Fear c
Working Memory:
RAM delay (120s)
73. Long Term Memory tasks results:
Lashley Maze
16
14
Females
Fear Conditioning:
Males
12
OLD Females
10 OLD decay
No Males (30d)
8 No age of sex differences
Errors
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 30d A B C
Trial
74. Long Term Memory tasks results:
Odor Discrimnation Long Term Memory
Odor retention test
1 month post training
8
600
% increase in errors from Training(T4)
6 500
400
4
errors
300
2
200
100
0
0
1 2 3 4 30 Days 5
trial
Females
Males
OLD F
OLD M
75. Working Memory:
Working memory test in RAM
DELAY
Mice trained to criteria
Allowed to make 4 20
18
choices 16
Females
Males
Errors after 120s hold
Held 120s 14
OLD F
OLD M
12
Errors until 3
10
additional correct 8
choices 6
Further testing 4
2
0
76. Age and Sex Influences on Learning
Abilities in Mice
David A. Townsend, Greg Hale, Stefan Kolata, Ken Light, and Louis D. Matzel
Department of Psychology
Program in Biopsychology & Behavioral Neuroscience
Rutgers University, Piscataway NJ
77.
78. Hormonal and Sex Differences
Have No Effect on Water Maze
Preformance
Performance
OVX
Mean+ SE Latency
100
FEMALE
MALE
(sec)
50 +
+
* +
0
0 1 2 3 4
DAY
+ p < .05 vs. Day 1
* p < .05 vs Male/OVX
Editor's Notes
Well, When David 1 st asked me to speak today, my emotions ran the gamet from fear and trepidation to terror. However, I thought I had a really cool title. Unfortunately, the title and this slide is very misleading. First of all, since you all know me, and I’m going to be talking for more than 5 m, its obvious that I couldn’t have done ALL this work, So I would like to acknowledge the members of my lab who do more than scower the hall for cookies
Crystallized Intelligence is difficult to study in animals Crystallized Intelligence is: Now, in 1989 studied crystallized intelligence in mice by training mice for 4 months in a RAM. Since this is longer than my marriages, I was unwilling to do this
So lets get rid of that And move on to Fluid intelligence
Fluid intelligence is the ability to deal with novel problems and successfully solve them. I’d like to focus on this definition of Fluid intelligence from Cattell’s early work. Read….
Fluid intelligence is very closely related to the notion we all have of what intelligence is, reasoning ability and dealing with novel problems. In humans, especially in IQ tests, if an individual does well on one intelligence measure or test, there is a good change they perform well most others. This correlation, which is hierarchal in nature produces a large general factor in factor analytical measuments. This general factor represents the idea of a underlying mechanism that drives and affects measurements of intelligence. In Cattell’s theories this underlying ability is Gf. But Gf can also be interpreted as what we imply when we discuss general intelligence.
So especially in animal models of intelligence, where, like we do, animals intelligence is measures during acquisition, Gf, solving novel problems, is how we measure General intelligence or learning abilities.
So, out with fluid intelligence and onto general intelligence.
As you all know, Human intelligence is one of the most therouly studied branchs of psychology, So one would think that we had an agreed upon paradigm and definition of what general intelligence is. Well we don’t. These are two definitions of general intelligence, out of .thousands. Intelligence is sort of pornography, its hard to define, but we know it when we see it.
Though intelligence can be a generic term for stimulus apprehension, attention,perception,discrimination, generalization, conditioning, learning, STM, LTM, thinking, reasoning, inference and problem solving
The idea that there is an underlying process, general intelligence or G, that underlies performance on all measures of cognitive abilities is not new, dates back to Darwin and Galton. Spearman formalized the concept theoretically and mathematically using factor analyze over 80 years ago. The idea is that in any novel problem solving there are factors that influence solving a task that are specific to that task, BUT, that there is an underlying mechanism, brain based, that influences performance on all cognitive tasks and abilities. Spearman identifies this as the mental engine or the available mental energy to solve problems
Now, there is overwhelming evidence that a General learning ability exists and that indiduals differ, there is natural variation in a population, in learning abilities. Again, we recognize different levels of intelligence when we see them, and if and individual performs well on one test of learning abilities they almost universally perform well on other measurements.
There are two ways to explore general intelligence, both of which we pursue in our lab. You can look and group differences in intelligence, and difference in general intelligence, learning abliltes btw. Indiduals.
Group difference is the usually method, as neuroscientists, we use to explore psychology processes, including learning abilities. The scant data I will be presented today is from a study looking at difference in learning abilities btw. Different populations.
Individual differences explore the natural variation within a population in in intelligence. This perspective has been very useful for us in trying to operationalize and define what is general intelligence and what the possible neural substrates of it are. I’m going to spend some time discussing how we explore individual differences in intelligence
Well, Back to my title slide here. I am going to talk about mice. But why, there is some much research and debate of general intelligence in humans, but there is a pacidity of research using animal models. Well animal model present some unique advantages.
Control of external factor is one of the most important. But the greatest benefit of using mice is the ability to explore the neural mechanisms that drive and create general intelligence
We began interesting in this when Lou and Chet reported that, in hermisdial, which are little sea snails, greater synatitic efficacy resulted in enhanced learning abilities.
A "general" influence on humans' performance across diverse tests of cognitive abilities has been described as the most dominant and one of the most heritable cognitive traits ever identified (Plomin, 1999; Plomin and Spinath, 2002). The reason I’ve placed this slide here, is to emphasize, that though we are using a mice model of general intelligence, we are interested in defining learning abilities in Humans, and what drives variations in human general intelligence.
What we have done is create a sort of intelligence test for mice. A battery of diverse tests, akin to human IQ tests, to identifiy and explore general intelligence. The tasks are simple and diverse so that individual differences in learning abilities are easy to identify. We test our mice during acquisition, during the novel problem solving, In humans, task acquisition in highly correlated with all measures of general intelligence.
Here are the 8 learning tasks we use Lashley Maze, Odor Discrimination, Passive Avoidance, Spatial Plus Maze, Spatial Water Maze, Fear Conditioning, and Reinforced Alternation). Each task makes different demand on animals cognitive abilities. I’m going to briefly run through these tasks the Tasks reflect a range of fundamental processes that all animals can master (i.e., Elemental Cognitive Tasks, or ECTs). We also consider Task Diversity : Tasks should impinge on distinct information processing strategies, sensory, motor, motivational, and brain systems. Transfer of Learning between tasks was minimized. of course we consider Time Constraints : the Test battery must be sufficiently short so to negate the impact of differential effects of aging. We test Animals in a cquisition , thus insuring sensitivity to real differences across animals and minimizing any impact of variations in long-term memory. We feel this strategy insures Sensitivity to Variations in Learning : Since Age/sex have shown sexual dimorphism is Spatial skill, 3 tests of spatial skills, H20 maze, RAM, and spatial Win stay.
First the Lashley 3 Maze.
Here a mouse learns to travel through a maze For a reward. Over trials, the latency of rats to locate the goal box decreases, as do their errors (i.e., wrong turns or retracing). Animals relay on allocentic, or fixed motor patterns to solve the maze. The mouse here is show during the third trial of acquisition. We usually get stable asymptotic performance at the end of 5 trials
Passive avoidance
OK, In PA an animal is held in a chamber, the gate opens and the animal is allowed to step down into another chamber, where they receive an averse stimuli. Most people use shock, but we use bright lights and noise. Following just a single encounter trial, animals are subsequently reluctant to step off of the safe platform. The animals’ reluctance to leave the platform is believed to not reflect fear, because typical fear responses are not expressed in animals engaged in the avoidance response (Bolles, 1970;Morris, 1974). The latency, or reluctance to leave the platform after one exposure is used to create a ratio of how well the animal learned the avoidance response. Avoidance responses are very important in humans. We grab the railing every time we go down a flight of stairs, even if we have only fallen once as a toddler.
I will spare you an explanation of the H20 maze.
We use the spatial version of the Morris water maze, were mice most find a non visible platform. As you all know, performance is dependent on the stability of extra-maze cues, or “landmarks”, and is said to reflect the animals’ representation of its environment as a “cognitive map”.
Odor discrimination is a task that most of are subjects excel at.
Animals learn to associate an odor with a food reward. During training the target, rewarded odor randomly shifts. After 2 or three trials, most mice immediately go to the rewarded odor
We use behavioral suppression in are Fear conditioning of mice
Animals learn to associate a tone with shock. Then in a novel environment the tone is introduced during shaped drinking behavior. We use the disruption of drinking as a measurement of learned fear.
Animals are rewarded in one arm of a T maze, and most learn that the arm opposite the last rewarded arm is always the one that is baited. We can get stable performance after 10-12 training trials
The RAM
We’ve included the Radial arm maze as another spatial task. There is such an abundance of literature and so much controversy on rodent spatial skills, that spatial tests have become very important in animal models of general intelligence. As are last speaker, White, pointed out also, animals might use different skills or modals to solve differing spatial problems.. In the Ram, not only most the animal plan were to go to be rewarded, it most remember where it has been…..
The final task we currently use in our battery is a Spatial WIN/Stay test.
The goal in this task stays the same, but the animal is introduced into the maze at different locations, as in the water maze. However in this maze, the motor and stress demands places on our mice are different from swimming. This first trial, you can bearly see, the animal do not know which arm holds the reward. However, after acquisition, most animals go right to the baited arms.
Know, when we run animals through this battery, we see just what one sees in human populations and IQ tests. Animal that perform well in one learning task, during acquisition, perform well in other tasks. For demonstrative purposes, I am going to discuss two animals in a group we ran, 16, a good learning, and 13, a not so good learner, a remedial mouse On the top On the bottom..
In Passive avoidance, larger bars indicate stronger learning. 16 again learns well 13 doesn’t learn anything.
Same in the H2O maze 16…. 13……
Fear conditioning, higher bars represent better learning, 16 learns well 13 isn’t doing so well
What we’ve found in mice in our battery is the same as in human tests of general intelligence and learning abilities, Good performance on one cognitive tests matches with good performance on others. I will spare you the details of factor analysis, But as in humans, our data reveals a large first factor, high correlation btw indiduals performance on one task and performance on another. This first factor represents G or General intelligence influences on a task, with task specific abilities removed. So as in humans, A G factor or a mental engine appears to drive learning abilities.
This is all well and good, but because we use mice, it is possible that something else is driving performance. Exploration in an open field is highly correlated with performance in our battery. If a mouse spends more time in the open stressful areas of an OF, it performs better in the test battery. So is the battery just measuring stress?
It’s possible but the answer so far is ….
NO, Henni has been investigating this possibility and has found, read
Does our battery measure emotionality rather than general intelligence
No Read, Also aversive task, FC, H20, load or are correlated weakly with a general factor, our measure of general intelligent
Our we measuring Novelty seeking or past experience rather than general intelligence
NO, Using pertaining and exploration a novelty seeking, Ken and Lou have been able to ingeniously separate this factors from general learning abilities. Though general intelligence does seem to be related to exploration. This makes sense in mice, since animals that engage their environments are more likely to be exposed to the contingencies that underlie our test battery.
Instead of General intelligence are we measuring variations in WM? This is a fasinated question Complex working memory, not simple digit span, but the ability to hold and manipulate novel information is very similar to definitions of general intelligence. I would love to answer this question for you but
You’ll have to come see Stefan's talk before the Xmas party.
My focus has mostly been on groups difference in general intelligence and using the battery as a through-put to categorize mice.
SO finally a little about 2 of my favorite topic age and sex: IN Human populations: Age has been associated with a decline in Fluid intelligence However this can be offset by an increase in crystallized intelligence. We all remember how the RW model, but have trouble learning how to work a new digital toaster. Slower (neural conduction velocity) synaptic transmission, reduction in myelin SEX: NO overall difference in IQ Men better at spatial ( however Hampton an cycle), mechanical tasks, females better verbal skills Hedges1995- other two acertions And of course gross morphological differences We wanted to examine how age and/or sex influences learning abilities in mice
Over 3 replications we used……. Read for groups
Our sensory motor tasks included……
Mice were also tested on a wide array of sensory motor tasks. These tests not only quantify sensory/motor function but also emotionality, and stress reactivity. These tests included measures of pain sensitivity, coordination/strength, light/dark preferences and measures of general activity (e.g., running-wheel performance) along with exploratory behavior.
We included 8 learning tasks in this study
We also assessed memory utilizing 3 LTM retention tasks and a working memory task. Ok, IN the learning tasks:
In the majority of our learning tasks we did not see any effects of either age or sex. On this slide I am showing data from our PA and LASHLEY 3 tests Also no differences in Spatial win stay or Reinforced alternation
Like many other before, we found that age impaired h2o performance AXIS = This impairment was NOT due to basal differences in either swim speeds or path lengths to the hidden platform.
Two tasks, ODOR and RAM, old males displayed an impairment , or slower acquisition (PRESS). However, they we able to master the tasks like other groups of mice
FC produced an unusual result Young males appeared to be impaired learning a fear conditioned response. We saw this effect in all three replications. But had no explanation…
What we found was that it was a motivational difference. Young males were thirstier.. The graph on the right shows basal drinking during different acclimation periods. the Young males are, shown in the white bars, drink more, they found the water more rewarding.. This was not a learning impairment, but a performance/motivational effect fortunately we could overcome this motivational problem with extensive training, which was important since FC was used in our retention tests…..
Females not more active in 10 out of 11 tests of activity Only stress difference in PLUS MAZE, females more stressed Learning: H20 alone not a good measure for age differences. Didn’t see impairment in the majority of other tasks No sex difference We did not observe a big drop in LTM or retention due to age in our BALB/C mice Thank you
In 3 of our tasks, mice received ayssimotic training, than 30 days later were tested for retention
These are the results from the LASHLSEY test. We trained animals 2 additional days, than30d later looked at retention, There was some decay, but no differences do to age or sex, There was no decay for any groups in Fear conditioning. Over training created a long lasting fear response.
30 days after odor training, it appears that there is an age impairment, but if we look at the % increase in errors after 30 days, what we see is less decay in young females. Because of their good performance there is an effect of age, We didn’t see long-term memory difference in any other tasks So We want to duplicate this Odor might not be appropriate for LTM, it doesn't have high resolution OF course there might be a decay in olfactory abilities in are mice with age.
Explain Males less impaired
Thank you -------- The word Symposium comes from the Greek and literally means “ drinking together”. And it’s always a pleasure to be in the company of some many who retain this classical tradition. Today I’ll be discussing age and sex affect performance in a battery of tests designed to assess general learning abilities
