Cited by 116Memory and Neural MechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior

The effects of orbital frontal cortex damage on the modulation of defensive responses by rats in playful and nonplayful social contexts.

Pellis, Sergio M., Hastings, Erica, Shimizu, Takeshi, Kamitakahara, Holly, Komorowska, Joanna, Forgie, Margaret L., Kolb, Bryan·2006·Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

In a series of 3 experiments on rats, 2 hypotheses were tested: (a) that damage to the orbital frontal cortex (OFC) would alter the socially relevant context for executing defensive responses but not their performance and (b) that damage done to the OFC in early infancy would produce more deficits in social behavior than similar damage occurring in adulthood. Bilateral or unilateral OFC damage in adult males did not impair their ability to defend themselves during play fighting and when protecting their food but did impair their ability to modify the pattern of defense in response to different partners. Rats that sustained bilateral damage at 3 days of age not only had deficits in partner-related modulation of defense but also exhibited hyperactivity in their play. The findings thus supported the proposed hypotheses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0735-7044.120.1.72

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Not all partners are equally attractive as play mates.

    “Not all partners are equally attractive as play mates (Holloway and Suter, 2004; Pellis et al., 2006).”
  • Experimental manipulations may alter the ability of rats to discriminate between partners, and this may go undetected in the standard dyadic play paradigm, potentially leading to the false conclusion that the manipulation has no effect.

    “Experimental manipulations may alter the ability of rats to discriminate between partners (Pellis et al., 2006), and this may go undetected in the standard, dyadic play paradigm, in which interaction with only one partner is possible, potentially leading to the false conclusion that the experimental manipulation has no effect as the amount of play is the same as that of the control.”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 81 · Cited by 116

Authors
Pellis, S. M., Hastings, E., Shimizu, T., Kamitakahara, H., Komorowska, J., Forgie, M. L., & Kolb, B.
Affiliations
University of Lethbridge (CA)
Venue
Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2006
Volume
120
Issue
1
Pages
72-84
ISSN
  • 0735-7044 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0084
OpenAlex
W1983541428
Cited by
116
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Keywords
orbitofrontal cortex, defensive behavior, social environment, play fighting, social behavior deficits, hyperactivity, food protection, rats
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Body Temperature, Corpus Striatum, Female, Male, Orbit, Play and Playthings, Social Behavior, Social Dominance, Somatosensory Cortex, Prefrontal Cortex, Rats, Long-Evans, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review