Psychology Assignment 2

Physiology & Behavior 97 (2009) 229–238

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physiology & Behavior

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /phb

Sex differences in learning processes of classical and operant conditioning

Christina Dalla a,b, Tracey J. Shors a,⁎ a Department of Psychology and Center for Collaborative Neuroscience, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, 08854, USA b Department of Pharmacology, Medical School, University of Athens, Mikras Asias 75, Goudi 11527, Athens, Greece

⁎ Corresponding author. Rutgers University, Departm huysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA. Tel.: +1732 44

E-mail address: [email protected] (T.J. Shors).

0031-9384/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. A doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.02.035

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 8 December 2008 Received in revised form 5 February 2009 Accepted 20 February 2009

Keywords: Learning Conditioning Association Conditioned responses Female rats Sex differences Eyeblink conditioning Fear conditioning Conditioned taste aversion Active avoidance Fear-potentiated startle Estrogen Operant conditioning Testosterone Organizational effects of hormones Ovariectomy Castration Spines Hippocampus Neurogenesis

Males and females learn and remember differently at different times in their lives. These differences occur in most species, from invertebrates to humans. We review here sex differences as they occur in laboratory rodent species. We focus on classical and operant conditioning paradigms, including classical eyeblink conditioning, fear-conditioning, active avoidance and conditioned taste aversion. Sex differences have been reported during acquisition, retention and extinction in most of these paradigms. In general, females perform better than males in the classical eyeblink conditioning, in fear-potentiated startle and in most operant conditioning tasks, such as the active avoidance test. However, in the classical fear-conditioning paradigm, in certain lever-pressing paradigms and in the conditioned taste aversion, males outperform females or are more resistant to extinction. Most sex differences in conditioning are dependent on organizational effects of gonadal hormones during early development of the brain, in addition to modulation by activational effects during puberty and adulthood. Critically, sex differences in performance account for some of the reported effects on learning and these are discussed throughout the review. Because so many mental disorders are more prevalent in one sex than the other, it is important to consider sex differences in learning when applying animal models of learning for these disorders. Finally, we discuss how sex differences in learning continue to alter the brain throughout the lifespan. Thus, sex differences in learning are not only mediated by sex differences in the brain, but also contribute to them.

© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Why study sex differences in learning and memory?

It is well established that men and women perform differently on some types of learning tasks, but the reasons for those differences are not well understood. For example, women tend to outperformmen on tasks that involve verbal or semantic rules and memories related to personal experience, whereas men perform better on tasks that require the manipulation of complex spatial information, such as the manipulation of shapes in space [1–4]. Numerous studies report sex differences in humans [5,6]. These differences are attributed to a variety and a combination of factors including those of genetic, hormonal and social origin [7–14]. That said, many of the reported sex differences are relatively small in magnitude and their emergence

ent of Psychology, 152 Freling- 5 6968; fax: +1732 445 2263.

ll rights reserved.

may only arise as a function of the task, its difficulty or the specific experimental design [14]. For these reasons, sex differences in human cognition are difficult to be observed and once observed, even more difficult to interpret. Despite these difficulties and the controversies that arise, there is much interest in the topic. In part, this information may be useful for educational purposes, because girls and boys may be better suited to different types of instruction. Although men and women often have similar capacities, they may excel with different teaching or environmental challenges [15]. For education purposes as well as general knowledge, it is important to know whether sex differences that do exist are genetic, hormonal or social in nature and as a consequence, whether they are immutable or not.

Perhaps more importantly, our knowledge on sex differences in learning can help us prevent and treat more effectively a wide range of sex-differentiated psychiatric and neurological disorders in which cognitive alterations are associated with their aetiology or sympto- matology. For example, alcoholism, autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are much more common in men,

230 C. Dalla, T.J. Shors / Physiology & Behavior 97 (2009) 229–238

whereas Alzheimer's disease, social phobias, eating disorders, post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depression are more common in women [16–24]. Many of these disorders are treated with cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and other models of learning. For example, PTSD and anxiety disorders are often treated with expo- sure therapy, extinction and systematic desensitization, all processes of associative learning. Similarly, drug addictions, which are more common in men than women, are interpreted as a function of rein- forcement based on principles of classical and operant conditioning theory [25,26].

In all animal species, including humans, sex differences in learning vary according to the demands of the task and what the animal is required to perform and presumably learn [27–29]. Thus, a greater appreciation for these differences will likely enhance the validity of the animal model. Minimally, the presentation of sex differences in learning underscores the need to include females in basic research studies [30]. They are often not included either because of the problems inherent to monitoring the estrous cycle, but also because it is assumed that their behaviours will be similar to males, albeit more variable. Oddly enough, in human studies, men tend to express more variance on test scores of cognitive and intellectual performance [31].

In this review, we present evidence for sex differences in classical and operant conditioning paradigms, with a focus on classical eye- blink conditioning, fear conditioning, escape and active avoidance, and conditioned taste aversion. Wewill also discuss whether and if so, how these sex differences are inherited orminimally organized during development by the presence of gonadal hormones [32]. Some of the sex differences depend on the presence of reproductive hormones, because they can be either eliminated or in some cases reversed by hormonal manipulations in adulthood [33]. When available, we will present data showing differences in performance as a function of stages of the estrous cycle and/or in response to reproductive hormone manipulations. Sex differences in spatial learning, although important, will not be discussed in this review, because they have been reviewed elsewhere [28,29,34–38].

2. Sex differences in classical eyeblink conditioning

The classical eyeblink conditioning paradigm is an associative learning task. In this paradigm, the animal is presented in each trial with a white noise (conditioned stimulus, CS), which is followed closely (within a second) by an aversive stimulation to the eyelid, which causes the animal to blink (unconditioned response, UR). The unconditioned response becomes conditioned as the animal learns that the CS predicts the occurrence of the eyelid stimulation, the unconditioned stimulus (US) (Fig. 1a). This is a useful response to study because the animal quickly learns that the CS and the US are associated (i.e. emits a conditioned response, CR), but requires many trials to learn to time the eyeblink so that it occurs precisely (within milliseconds) before the US. The slow rate of acquisition allows the experimenter the opportunity to assess learning and asymptotic performance with a certain degree of accuracy. Moreover, this task is useful because its anatomical circuitry has been described, and it can be assessed in most species, including humans [5,39,40]. Finally, different versions of this task exist that allow a more sophisticated approach in identifying specific learning processes and anatomical substrates. For many of our studies, we rely on a procedure known as trace conditioning. This task depends on the hippocampus and requires multiple trials to learn because the CS is separated with the US with a trace interval of 500 ms. We also observe sex differences during delay conditioning. Delay conditioning is much easier to learn than trace conditioning, because the CS and the US overlap in time; learning this association does not depend on the hippocampus (Fig. 1) [41,42].

During both trace and delay conditioning, females outperform males [33,43–47] (Fig. 1b). In particular, females begin to learn to time

the CR (i.e. eyeblink) sooner than do males and the sex difference is most evident during the first day of training. After a few days of training, in most cases males and females eventually reach similar levels of performance (i.e. asymptote), but the sex differences are prevalent and evident across hundreds of trials of training. When the timing of the learned responses is analyzed, we observe that females emit well-timed learned responses sooner during the trace interval than do males. Thus, for whatever reason, they are learning to anticipate the onset of the US and as a consequence can emit a more well-timed response. Also, in experiments with a limited number of trials, more females than males reach a learning criterion of 60% responding [43,47,48].

Importantly, classical eyeblink conditioning is less influenced by performance factors that can inadvertently affect learning. That said, one can never rule out performance effects entirely. In terms of general responsivity, we have never seen any sex difference in spon- taneous blinking before training. Neither have we observed any sex differences in eyeblink response to the white noise alone (the eventual CS) before training or in the magnitude of the UR. Also, both males and females do not respond to the first trial, before any US has occurred [47]. Most convincing is our recent data on memory. In this study, females that are trained and weeks later they are re-exposed to the CS, respond with many more CRs than do males. These data indicate that female rats actually learn the CR better than males and thus they retain it better [49].

The magnitude of the sex difference in eyeblink conditioning appears to be sensitive to sex hormone concentrations, because it is most evident when females begin training in proestrus, when estrogen levels are high [43–45,50]. Also, removal of ovarian hormones prevents the sex difference in performance [44]. On the other hand, estrogen replacement at physiological doses does not enhance conditioning in ovariectomized females. Only very high non-physiological doses of estradiol are effective. In this case, the hormone enhances conditioning and extinguishes responding [33]. As noted, under normal cycling levels, we observe that females outperformmales. This sex difference is very evident in females that are trained in proestrus, when estrogen levels are at their peak. However, the sex difference is apparent even in females that are trained during diestrus, a phase of the estrous cycle characterized by lower levels of estrogen and progesterone (Fig. 1b) [47]. Thus, sex differences are evident across the estrous cycle and are not solely dependent on the presence of estrogen in females. Other factors that might regulate these sex differences are not known, but progesterone and luteinizing hormone levels in adult cycling females may also contribute to sex differences in learning. It is noted that one would not expect a total dependence of basic learning processes on one or even a few hormones, because the adaptive value of learning is too great. Males and females of all species undergo massive changes in sex hormone availability across their lifespan, so learning cannot be massively influenced by their levels.

In addition to estrogen, sex differences in learning are also mediated or minimally modulated by the presence of testosterone in both males and females, at least under some limited circumstances. For example, classical conditioning in adult male rats that were treated with a testosterone antagonist in utero or were castrated at birth, is not affected [46]. Neither does castration in adulthood affect performance during trace eyeblink conditioning [51]. Therefore, testosterone during brain development or in adulthood does not influence trace eyeblink conditioning in males. On the other hand, classical conditioning is decremented in adult females if they are treated with testosterone on the day of their birth. In fact, masculinized females then perform similarly to males [46]. These results indicate that testosterone exerts some organizational effects in the brain of these females. It is noted that the adult masculinized females do not cycle and have lower plasma levels of estrogen than intact females, suggesting that low levels of estrogen in adulthoodmay be linked with their delayed acquisition during eyeblink conditioning

Fig. 1. Females outperform males in eyeblink conditioning. a. During eyeblink conditioning, a conditioned stimulus (CS) of white noise is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US; periorbital stimulation), which elicits an eyeblink response. In the non-hippocampal dependent task of delay conditioning the two conditioning stimuli overlap in time. In the hippocampal-dependent task of trace conditioning the two conditioning stimuli are separated by a trace interval or “temporal gap” of 500 ms. As an animal learns that the two stimuli are associated, it blinks in anticipation of the US. Eyeblinks are detected by an increase in the magnitude of the electromyographical (EMG) response of the muscle of the upper eyelid. Those blinks that occur close to the US are considered conditioned responses (CRs). The electrophysiological record shows an example of a CR that occurred just prior to the onset of the US. b. Intact females emit more conditioned responses than intact males during trace eyeblink conditioning (pb0.05). In this experiment, all females were in diestrus on the first day of training. Rats were trained with 800 trials of trace eyeblink conditioning over a period of 4 days (200 trials/day). The sex difference is evident during the first two days of training [47].

231C. Dalla, T.J. Shors / Physiology & Behavior 97 (2009) 229–238

[46]. Again, this relationship is not absolute because, as mentioned above, females with relatively low levels of estrogen still outperform males in adulthood [47]. Therefore, it seems that the manipulation of hormones during development is inducing a more general and probably pervasive effect on conditioning than that observed across the estrous cycle.

Interestingly, the sex differences in learning emerge after puberty, whereas no sex differences are observed before or during puberty [45]. Again, these data indicate that sex differences in eyeblink condi- tioning cannot be fully explained by differences in plasma estrogen levels, because pubescent and adult females have similar estrogen levels, but only adult females exhibit enhanced performance in comparison to males. The same conclusion holds for progesterone levels, which are higher in females than in males both during puberty and in adulthood [45].

Thus, sex differences in learning are influenced by both organiza- tional and activational effects of sex hormones, but in a complex and probably interactive way. High estrogen levels in the plasma of adult female rats are definitely an important factor for the expression of enhanced learning in females, but they do not fully account for the sex

differences. Among other potential candidates, it is possible that local estrogen production in the brain, which is also influenced by organizational effects of sex hormones and estrous cyclicity, might contribute to the enhanced learning in females [52,53].

The neuroanatomical substrates that might account for sex differences have not been identified, but one does run in parallel — that of changes in the number of dendritic spines on pyramidal cells of the CA1 area of the hippocampus [54–56] (Fig. 2a). Spine densities are increased during proestrus and after exogenous estrogen administra- tion [57–59]. Additionally, spine densities are higher in proestrus females than in males [55] (Fig. 2b). These differences, along with other neurobiological differences, might be linked with sex differ- ences in learning. This is further supported by the fact that both trace and delay eyeblink conditioning increase spine densities in the CA1 area of the hippocampus, at least in the male rats [60]. Further evidence comes from studies related to stress [61]. In particular, exposure to an uncontrollable stressor severely impairs classical conditioning in females, and they also possess significantly fewer dendritic spines in their hippocampus after the stressor. In contrast, exposure to the same uncontrollable stressor greatly enhances

Fig. 3. Associative learning increases neurogenesis in the male and female hippocampus. a. The density of adult generated cells (BrdU-labeled cells) in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus is enhanced in rats trained with trace eyeblink conditioning, in comparison to untrained animals. The percent increase is greater in trained females (34%) than in trained males (17%). The density of new cells in untrained females is lower than that in untrained males (significant differences are noted with an ⁎) [47]. b. A representative picture of the dentate gyrus is shown (magnified 20×). In the smaller panel (magnified 1000×), the new cells in the dentate gyrus of the adult hippocampus are stained in brown (BrdU-labeled cells). The hippocampal slice was counterstained with cresyl violet (cells shown in purple). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 2. Dendritic spines in the hippocampus might represent an anatomical background for learning. a. Representative pictures of pyramidal neurons in the CA1 area of the hippocampus stained with the Golgi impregnation technique (magnification 200×). Density of dendritic spines is measured in the basal and the apical dendrites of the pyramidal cells. A closer image (magnification 1000×) of dendritic spines in the apical dendrites of a female rat is shown. b. Female rats in proestrus have higher densities of dendritic spines in the CA1 area of the hippocampus, in comparison to females in diestrus and in estrus and to intact males [55].

232 C. Dalla, T.J. Shors / Physiology & Behavior 97 (2009) 229–238

classical conditioning in males, and they possess significantly more spines after the stressor [43,54,55]. Finally, we find that stress enhances learning in females that are masculinized and they possess more spines after the stressor [32,56]. Thus, under all these various circumstances, performance of the learned response relates in a positive way to the presence of dendritic spines in the CA1 area of the hippocampus [61].

Another very interesting consequence of successful learning during trace eyeblink conditioning is the enhanced survival of new cells that were born in the hippocampal formation one week before the start of training [62–65]. In a recent study we found that female rats learn better than males in trace eyeblink conditioning and as a consequence, a greater proportion of new neurons are rescued in their hippocampus than in males (Fig. 3) [47]. This finding underscores the importance of sex differences in learning and is an example of how learning can influence the anatomy of the adult brain in a sex- differentiated way.

3. Sex differences in fear conditioning

Sex differences have been reported for a different type of clas- sical conditioning often referred to as fear conditioning. In the typical

procedure, animals are trained to associate a cue or a context (CS) with an aversive stimulus, usually a footshock (US). As a result, when they are re-exposed to the same context or cue (e.g. tone), they learn to freeze or express an enhanced startle reflex (CR) in anticipation of the footshock. Females tend to express less conditioned freezing behaviour than males during acquisition and testing for contextual fear conditioning [66,67]. As during classical eyeblink conditioning, castration of male rats in adulthood does not alter the conditioned responses, while ovariectomy is effective [33,51,68,69]. In particular, females that are ovariectomized in adulthood express similar levels of fear to males with an enhanced resistance to extinction. Some studies suggest that estrogen replacement normalizes these effects,

233C. Dalla, T.J. Shors / Physiology & Behavior 97 (2009) 229–238

implicating activational effects of estrogen [69]. Thus, it seems that fear conditioning is not mediated by testosterone levels in adulthood, while estrogen has an effect. Sex differences in fear conditioning and effects of ovariectomy do not appear to be directly related to less general freezing behaviour in females than inmale rats (see also below), because gonadally-intact females and ovariecto- mized females exhibit similar levels of freezing during acquisition [69]. However, it is still possible that the tendency of male rats to respond to shock with enhanced freezing might influence perfor- mance on this task.

In cue fear conditioning, where a tone is used as the CS, again male rats acquire the association faster than females by exhibiting higher freezing in fewer trials [66,67]. This effect has also been shownwith a different measurement of fear, namely ultrasonic vocalizations, suggesting that males exhibit more conditioned fear than females [70]. However, conflicting results have been obtained on whether sex differences exist during testing (retention) and extinction of cue fear conditioning, when rats are placed in a different context (CR: time spent freezing) [66,67,71]. When ultrasonic vocalizations are used as measurement of the CR, males showa higher responding than females during retention tests [70].

Thus, in general, males outperform females in fear-conditioning paradigms. The sex differences in fear conditioning are in contrast to those observed during training with the eyeblink conditioned response. The differences are probably due to the inherent differences of the two tasks and the variable used as the conditioned response (CR). In the fear-conditioning paradigm, non-associative factors, such as fear, might interfere with learning. It is possible that males per- form better than females, because they acquire and retain the condi- tioned fear to a higher degree. In the classical eyeblink conditioning paradigm, in which fear may be minimized, females outperform males. However, when males are previously exposed to a traumatic fearful experience, such as exposure to tailshocks, then associative learning is enhanced and oftentimes facilitated when the context of stress and training is the same [72].

As in other learning paradigms, various stressors, such as neonatal isolation and maternal separation, influence fear-conditioning during adulthood in a sex-dependent way [70,73]. In particular, the early life stress of neonatal isolation results in enhanced context-induced fear in adult females, whereas it tends to impair context-induced fear in adult males. On the other hand, prolonged maternal separation impairs context-induced fear in adult females, whereas brief maternal separation impairs both context and cue fear conditioning in both sexes [73]. Again, these effects were seen only with the sensitive measure of ultrasonic vocalizations and not with measurement of the freezing behaviour [70,73]. Overall, stress either enhances or impairs associative learning depending on the stressor, the task, the age and the sex of the animal.

In another paradigm, fear is assessed by the startle response of the rats. In the fear-potentiated startle paradigm, the rats learn that the presence of a cue, such as a light, is paired with a footshock. Therefore, when they are later exposed to the light without the footshock, they show enhanced startle reflex, in response to a sudden noise [74]. In this paradigm intact females show a greater potentiation of startle thanmales [75]. However, females also have a higher baseline acoustic startle reflex (non-associative measure) than males and this is influenced by the phase of the estrous cycle, lactation and previous stress exposure [76–78]. Estrogen and progesterone treatment of ovariectomized females induce opposite effects on fear-potentiated startle, with estrogen enhancing performance in retention tests and addition of progesterone to counteract these effects [79]. However, when acquisition is delayed in the fear-potentiated startle paradigm by presentation of two light-shock pairings a day over a period of 8 days, no sex differences are observed, at least with respect to acquisition of the startle response; as in other studies, castration of adult males has no effect on performance [78,80]. Thus, it seems that

testosterone levels in males do not influence their performance on the fear-potentiated startle, while estrogen and progesterone levels mediate performance on this task.

Exposure to a bright light for 5–20 min leads to enhanced ampli- tude of the acoustic startle response and thus this manipulation has been used for the development of the light-enhanced startle paradigm, which measures unconditioned anxiety [80,81]. In this paradigm females express an enhanced response, an effect that is reversed by castration of adult males. In retention tests, treatment of castrated male rats with testosterone reduces light-enhanced startle, and this has been attributed to the anxiolytic effects of testosterone [78,80]. In this instance, ovariectomy has no effect, although pregnancy is associated with an enhancement of the light-enhanced startle response [78]. These scientists went on to conduct a rather ingenious set of studies using a discrimination task which afforded measurement of the excitatory (fear-provoking) and the inhibitory (fear-reducing) aspects of learning. In these studies, estrogen treatment of ovariectomized females disrupts the inhibition of fear [82]. These data along with other findings indicate that females with high estrogen levels may not be able to suppress the fear associated with aversive experience.

4. Sex differences in operant conditioning

Females also outperform males during operant conditioning, but probably for very different reasons than their facilitated acquisition during classical conditioning [27,83–87]. During an operant task, an animalmustmake an overt response in order to learn. Often, they learn to escape an aversive stimulus, such as a mild foot shock. Recently, as part of our learned helplessness studies, we trained male and female rats on the one-way avoidance task (FR1) [83,84]. In this task, the rats must pass through the doorway of a shuttle box once, in order to avoid amild footshock (1mA) [88]. This is an easy task andmost rats learn to avoid the footshock very fast on the first day of training. However, females escape sooner thanmales during the first trials of the one-way avoidance task [83,84]. More striking sex differences emerge when males and females are tested on a more difficult task, the two-way avoidance task (FR2) (Fig. 4a) [83,84]. In this task the rats need to pass twice through the doorwayof the shuttle box, in order to terminate the footshock. Although the task is more difficult, most females readily learn to escape the stimulus on the first trials of testing, whereasmales require more trials. In some cases, male rats never learn to escape the shock, even after 30 trials of training [83]. It seems thatmales avoid the side of the box where they just got shocked and thus they do not pass through the doorway twice. In contrast, females do not avoid it and thus they learn to pass twice. This has been shown before, in passive avoidance studies, inwhich animalsmust leave the light compartment and enter the dark compartment of the testing box, where they had received a footshock the previous day. In this test, again females are more likely than males to re-enter the dark compartment, in which they previously have been shocked (for review see [27]). Also, extinction studies have shown that when females are placed again in the shuttle box without any shock presentation, they escape sooner than males, suggesting that extinction of the avoidance behaviour is slower to occur in females [27]. Finally, females also outperformmales in another type of operant conditioning, in which they need to avoid the shock by pressing a lever [89,90].

Sex differences in operant conditioning are at least in part attri- butable to sex differences in performance [91]. Female rats respond actively to aversive stimulation, such as the footshock, whereas male rats exhibit behavioural inhibition by reacting passively and freezing [27,85,86,92]. Several performance issues have been raised in the explanation of sex differences in avoidance behaviour. Most evident are the sex differences in activity; female rats are in general more active thanmales, as demonstratedwith the open-field test and with running wheels [93–96]. Also, sex differences in electrical

Fig. 4. Females outperform males in the active avoidance task. a. Gonadally-intact females escape sooner than gonadally-intact males in active avoidance (pb0.05). Females were in various stages of the estrous cycle at the time of testing. Rats were trained to avoid a mild footshock by passing through the doorway of the shuttle box twice (FR2), for 30 trials in one day [83]. b. Ovariectomy of adult females in adulthood has no effect on active avoidance. Gonadally-intact and ovariectomized females exhibit the same escape latencies when they are trained to avoid a mild footshock by passing twice through the doorway of the shuttle box (FR2), for 30 trials in one day [83]. c. Castrated adult males learn to escape sooner from the mild footshock in the FR2 task, in comparison to gonadally-intact adult males (pb0.05). Rats were trained to avoid a mild footshock by passing through the doorway of the shuttle box twice (FR2), for 30 trials in one day [83].

234 C. Dalla, T.J. Shors / Physiology & Behavior 97 (2009) 229–238

resistance and reactivity likely have an impact on their performance during operant conditioning [27,86,97]. In general, females are more sensitive to shock than males, as measured by fear responses [27,70], although it has been suggested that in most studies the shock intensity is sufficient to eliminate these differences [86]. Perhaps, sex differences in nociception or stress-induced analgesia phenomena might play an undetectable role in these phenomena [98–101]. That said, hormonal or environmental manipulations that alter activity, shock and pain sensitivity do not always result in parallel changes in avoidance behaviour [83,86,96,98,102]. Thus, it seems that males and females have different strategies in response to aversive stimuli that probably account for some sex differences in the expression of fear (see above). Nevertheless, in order to assess performance issues, it is best to measure activity levels before and/or after the test and also to assess additional behaviours other than freezing, such us jumps and vocalization, during shock exposure.

Removal of the ovaries does not prevent the sexdifference in operant conditioning, as it has no effect on general activity [83,86,86,90,97] (Fig. 4b). However, cycling estrogen and progesterone seem to influence conditioned avoidance behaviour and escape latencies, because females perform better during proestrus, when estrogen levels are high [103]. Studies with exogenous estrogen administration showed that low doses of estrogen disrupt, while high doses facilitate acquisition of the active avoidance behaviour [102]. Finally, estrogen replace- ment delays extinction in the one-way avoidance task in female rats, suggesting that estrogens play a role in the maintenance of the escape behaviour [104]. In contrast, castration of adult males facili- tates learning in operant conditioning (Fig. 4c) [83,90]. It seems that high testosterone levels in adulthood mediate the behavioural inhibition that male rats develop when they are exposed to the footshock. Testosterone has been proposed to have anxiolytic properties and this might contribute to the passive strategy that male rats choose in response to the footshock [105]. Additionally, organizational effects of testosterone seem to play some role in the emergence of sex differences in avoidance behaviour [27]. When females are masculinized by exposure to testosterone on the day of their birth, they do not perform like males as adults [83,86]. How- ever, if they are also treated with testosterone in adulthood, then they exhibit male-like escape avoidance latencies [86]. Neonatal castration of male rats does not have an effect on this kind of behaviour [87,106], but prenatal exposure to an anti-androgen combined with neonatal castration produces escape latencies in adulthood, which are indistinguishable from females [87].

In another type of operant conditioning, rats learn to press a lever in order to receive a positive stimulus, such as food. In this task, males exhibit higher contact with the lever, irrespective of whether they will receive the reinforcer (i.e. food) or not. So, male rats perform better than females during training on this task (for detailed review see [27]). Sex differences in lever-pressing have been attributed to higher general activity of females than males and to the fact that during testing, females engage in different activities than pressing the lever [27]. On the other hand, females perform better in a variation of the task, in which they need to systematically increase the number of times they press the lever in order to receive the reinforcer (differential reinforcement of low rate responding) [107,108]. Inter- estingly, when other objects are placed in the experimental environ- ment, the acquisition of the differential reinforcement of low rate responding is facilitated in males, but not in females [108]. Also, sex differences in differential reinforcement of low rate responding seem to depend on activational effects of hormones, because they are not observed during puberty, they are abolished by ovariectomy and neonatal castration of males has no effect [109]. Also, bar-press duration correlates with estrous cyclicity [110]. Thus, sex differences exist in lever-pressing paradigms with males outperforming females in simple tasks, while females perform better in more difficult tasks, such as the differential reinforcement of low rate responding.

235C. Dalla, T.J. Shors / Physiology & Behavior 97 (2009) 229–238

In a recent study, no sex differences in pre-pubertal and adult rats were observed in compulsive lever-pressing, which is observed during extinction training. In this task, rats are trained to associate the pressing of a lever with a tone, a light and a food reward, while during extinction the pressing of the lever results in the emergence of the tone and the light, but not to food reinforcement [111]. In the initial phases of training, adult females acquire the association slower than males, while pre-pubertal rats are faster than adults. Interestingly, compulsive responding during extinction is highest during late diestrus, when estrogen levels are very low and lowest during estrous phase of the estrous cycle, when estrogen levels start to rise. Acute administration of estrogen to pre-pubertal females attenuates lever- pressing, while withdrawal from chronic administration of estrogen facilitates this behaviour, suggesting that estrogen protects from compulsive lever-pressing [111].

Again, in operant conditioning, as in classical eyeblink conditioning it seems that sex differences in learning are organized during develop- ment of the brain, mainly by prenatal exposure to androgens in males. These effects are combined with exposure of the male brain to testosterone during the postnatal critical period of the development and with other effects of testosterone later in puberty and adulthood. It seems that in active avoidance tasks, testosterone plays a more important role than estrogen in the emergence of sex differences, whereas in eyeblink and fear-conditioning, estrogen and progesterone in females seem to bemore important. These tasks differ in the fact that during operant conditioning, the animal must emit a voluntary motor response in order to learn the contingency, whereas during classical (i.e. Pavlovian) conditioning, the animal emits an obligatory unconditioned response to the unconditioned stimulus, irrespective of volition. Thus, the two types of training procedures are vastly different in terms of their dependence on volitional activity and the learning processes involved. Therefore, different hormonal factors seem to modulate performance during the expression of these types of learning tasks.

Again, previous stress exposure has a profound effect on these behaviours. The active avoidance task has been extensively used after exposure to uncontrollable stress, in order to assess learned help- lessness [112,113]. When male rats are exposed to uncontrollable stress, they do not learn to escape the shock in the active avoidance task and thus they become helpless. On the contrary, females exposed to the same regime of uncontrollable stress learn to escape and thus they do not express learned helplessness behaviour [83,84,85,92]. The sex differences in helplessness are certainly mediated by the aforementioned sex differences in operant conditioning. However, gonadectomy of either sex in adulthood or masculinization of the female brain with testosterone on the day of birth does not prevent sex differences in learned helplessness behaviour [83].

5. Sex differences in conditioned taste aversion

During conditioned taste aversion, animals learn to associate the consumption of a sweet solution with an aversive compound that makes them physically ill. In the laboratory, the compound is usually quinine or lithium chloride administered after the animal drinks sucrose or saccharin. As a consequence of the illness, rats learn to avoid the sweet solution when they are re-exposed to it. Sex differences are not readily apparent during acquisition, which is conserved and persistent, but sex differences do occur during extinction [114–116]. Females typically extinguish sooner than males; they will again consume the sweet solution in less time and do so in greater quantities [115,117,118]. It is reported that castration of males accelerates extinction, whereas ovariectomy has no conse- quence. Interestingly, administration of testosterone exogenously increases the duration of extinction in both sexes, suggesting an activational role for testosterone in this task [117,118]. On the other hand, when estradiol is administered in ovariectomized female rats before extinction studies, it accelerates extinction of the aversive

association [117,119,120]. Thus, activational effects of sex hormones seem to influence extinction of the learned response within the conditioned taste aversion paradigm. To our knowledge, there is no report in the literature concerning developmental effects of sex hormones. Given the time course, such studies would be difficult to do, although not impossible.

As with most findings, the emergence of sex differences depends on the parameters of the task, compounds and doses used and the status of the animal, such as whether they were water deprived or not [27,115,121]. Again, performance on this task is most likely influenced by sex differences in the preference for sweet solutions and in the aversive/rewarding properties of the compounds used [114,122–124]. This is also the case when a drug of abuse is used as the aversive compound [115,116,123,125]. For example, when female rats are given i.p. injections of amphetamine as the aversive stimulus, they acquire significantly stronger aversions than males at low doses and express slower rates of extinction [126]. Although these data are very interesting, it is difficult to evaluate them from a learning perspective, because of the potent rewarding properties of the different classes of drugs of abuse. Accordingly, in stimulant self-administration para- digms, it has been consistently reported that female rats acquire stimulant self-administration of low doses of cocaine, methampheta- mine, opioids and nicotine at higher percentages and at a faster rate than males [127]. Also, in the conditioned place preference paradigm, they require fewer trials than males, in order to exhibit place prefer- ence for cocaine [128,129].

Thus, sex differences in conditioned taste aversion exist and they are influenced by activational effects of sex hormones [115,117,118]. However, taste reactivity, as well as rewarding and aversive responses are also influenced by sex hormones [124]. To make the issue more complicated, exogenous sex hormone's administration also has illness-inducing properties, which can in turn influence conditioned taste aversion [120]. As a result, it is difficult to study sex differences in conditioned learning in this paradigm, although they exist. That said, this is an important type of learning to consider because it represents oneway that an animal learns to select an appropriate diet available in its environment [130]. This type of learning has obvious adaptive value for an animal in its natural environment, regardless of sex.

6. Conclusions

Throughout the associative learning paradigms described in this review, females tend to acquire and retain the associations more effectively and extinguish them more slowly than males [27,47,83,105]. However, under some limited conditions, males out- perform females [66,67] (Table 1). These effects seem to depend on the amount of fear that is generated and expressed during the learning experience [27]. Also, some sex differences probably do not reflect sex differences in learning, but rather sex differences in strategies. This has been suggested before for spatial learning paradigms, in which male rats usually perform better than females by using a more direct strategy [29,36]. In most paradigms, high estrogen levels in females seem to facilitate acquisition and delay extinction, while high testosterone levels in adult males seem to disrupt certain types of learning [33,69,80,82,83,102,104]. Also, developmental effects of testosterone prenatally and postnatally seem to play an important role in the emergence of sex differences in many learning paradigms [32,86,87].

As it is discussed above, performance effects and non-associative factors, such as higher activity levels, higher acoustic startle reflex, higher response to shock, higher reinforcement and lower freezing behaviour in female rats, interfere with the study of sex differences in most paradigms. It is recommended to measure relevant behaviours when males and females are tested in these paradigms, in order to control for performance issues. However, sex differences in perfor- mance cannot fully explain sex differences in learning and therefore

Table 1 Summarizes differences between female (F) and male (M) rats in certain conditioning paradigms.

Task Sex difference

Ovariectomy Castration Organizational effects

Eyeblink conditioning

FNM ↓Acquisition No effect ↓Acquisition in masculinized females

Acquisition– retention

Contextual fear conditioning

MNF ↓Extinction No effect –

Acquisition– retention

Fear-potentiated startle

FNM Opposite effects of estrogen and progesterone

No effect –

Acquisition

Light enhanced startle

FNM No effect ↑Acquisition –

Acquisition Active avoidance FNM No effect ↑Acquisition ↑Acquisition in

masculinized females treated with testosterone in adulthood

Acquisition– extinction

Estrogen effects

Differential reinforcement of low rate responding

FNM ↓Acquisition – No effect Acquisition

Conditioned taste aversion

MNF No effect ↑Extinction –

Extinction Estrogen effects

It is noted whether the difference has been shown in acquisition of the learned response or during retention and/or extinction studies (slower extinction is indicatedwith the symbol N). Thearrowsdepict theeffectofovariectomyof adult femalesorcastrationofadultmalesduring acquisition or extinction of the learned responses (slower extinction is indicated with the arrow pointing down). Wherever data are available, the effects of hormones during development of the brain are also summarized. Please see text fordifferent variations of tasks, for controversial findings between studies and for relevant references.

236 C. Dalla, T.J. Shors / Physiology & Behavior 97 (2009) 229–238

we conclude that sex differences in associative learning exist. In studies that manipulate stress, rearing and housing conditions, pharmacology and hormones, both males and females should be tested. In most of our studies, we have opted to use classical conditioning because performance issues are more easily evaluated than in other procedures. We have chosen the eyeblink as the response because it is unambiguous.

Sex differences in learning are influenced by environmental and social factors in humans but also by genes, hormones and sex differences in the structure of the brain [6,9,11,131,132]. It has been suggested that sex differences in neuronal structure allow the male and female brains to respond differently from each other at different times in their lives. However, experience and learning also exert profound effects in the brain. Sex differences in learning are not only mediated by sex differences in brain anatomy, but they are also able to induce sex differences in that anatomy [47]. In the end, sex differences in learning and their effects on the brain must be taken seriously if we are to elucidate the mechanisms of the major psychiatric and neurological disorders, as well as the mechanisms of change based on processes of learning.

Acknowledgements

Original work was supported by the National Science Foundation (IOB-0444364) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)–National Institutes of Mental Health (MH59970) to T. J. Shors and a Marie Curie International Fellowship to C. Dalla, within the 6th European Commu- nity Framework Programme.

References

[1] Astur RS, Ortiz ML, Sutherland RJ. A characterization of performance by men and women in a virtual Morris water task: a large and reliable sex difference. Behav Brain Res 1998;93(1–2):185–90.

[2] Kimura. Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1999. [3] Sex differences in the neurocognition of language. In: Ullman MT, Miranda RA,

Travers ML, editors. Sex differences in the brain, from genes to behavior. Oxford: University Press; 2008. p. 227–51.

[4] Collins DW, Kimura D. A large sex difference on a two-dimensional mental rotation task. Behav Neurosci 1997;111(4):845–9.

[5] Spence KW, Spence JT. Sex and anxiety differences in eyelid conditioning. Psychol Bull 1966;65(3):137–42.

[6] Stark R, Wolf OT, Tabbert K, Kagerer S, ZimmermannM, Kirsch P, et al. Influence of the stress hormone cortisol on fear conditioning in humans: evidence for sex differences in the response of the prefrontal cortex. Neuroimage 2006;32(3): 1290–8.

[7] Hamann S. Sex differences in the responses of the human amygdala. Neuroscientist 2005;11(4):288–93.

[8] de Frias CM, Nilsson LG, Herlitz A. Sex differences in cognition are stable over a 10-year period in adulthood and old age. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 2006;13(3–4):574–87.

[9] Cahill L. Why sex matters for neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 2006;7(6):477–84. [10] Sambeth A, Blokland A, Harmer CJ, Kilkens TO, Nathan PJ, Porter RJ, et al. Sex

differences in the effect of acute tryptophan depletion on declarative episodic memory: a pooled analysis of nine studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2007;31(4): 516–29.

[11] Cosgrove KP, Mazure CM, Staley JK. Evolving knowledge of sex differences in brain structure, function, and chemistry. Biol Psychiatry 2007;62(8):847–55.

[12] DaviesW,Wilkinson LS. It is not all hormones: alternative explanations for sexual differentiation of the brain. Brain Res 2006;1126(1):36–45.

[13] Endocrine contributions to sex differences in visuospatial perception and cognition. In: Hampson E, editor. Sex differences in the brain, from genes to behavior. Oxford: University Press; 2008. p. 227–51.

[14] Hausmann M, Schoofs D, Rosenthal HE, Jordan K. Interactive effects of sex hormones and gender stereotypes on cognitive sex differences—a psychobioso- cial approach. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2008;34(3):389–401.

[15] Hyde JS, Lindberg SM, Linn MC, Ellis AB, Williams CC. Diversity. Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science 2008;321(5888):494–5.

[16] Hyde JS, Mezulis AH, Abramson LY. The ABCs of depression: integrating affective, biological, and cognitive models to explain the emergence of the gender differ- ence in depression. Psychol Rev 2008;115(2):291–313.

[17] Kessler RC. Epidemiology of women and depression. J Affect Disord 2003;74(1): 5–13.

[18] Kessler RC, Sonnega A, Bromet E, Hughes M, Nelson CB. Posttraumatic stress disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995;52(12): 1048–60.

[19] Steiner M, Allgulander C, Ravindran A, Kosar H, Burt T, Austin C. Gender differences in clinical presentation and response to sertraline treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Hum Psychopharmacol 2005;20(1):3–13.

[20] Stein MB, Jang KL, Taylor S, Vernon PA, Livesley WJ. Genetic and environmental influences on trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms: a twin study. Am J Psychiatry 2002;159(10):1675–81.

[21] Holden C. Sex and the suffering brain. Science 2005;308(5728):1574. [22] Biederman J, Mick E, Faraone SV, Braaten E, Doyle A, Spencer T, et al. Influence of

gender on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children referred to a psychiatric clinic. Am J Psychiatry 2002;159(1):36–42.

[23] Volkmar FR, Szatmari P, Sparrow SS. Sex differences in pervasive developmental disorders. J Autism Dev Disord 1993;23(4):579–91.

[24] Sotiropoulos I, Cerqueira JJ, Catania C, Takashima A, Sousa N, Almeida OF. Stress and glucocorticoid footprints in the brain—the path from depression to Alzheimer's disease. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2008;32(6):1161–73.

[25] Hyman SE, Malenka RC, Nestler EJ. Neural mechanisms of addiction: the role of reward-related learning and memory. Annu Rev Neurosci 2006;29:565–98.

[26] Keane TM, Marshall AD, Taft CT. Posttraumatic stress disorder: etiology, epidemiology, and treatment outcome. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2006;2:161–97.

[27] van Haaren F, van Hest A, Heinsbroek RP. Behavioral differences between male and female rats: effects of gonadal hormones on learning and memory. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1990;14(1):23–33.

[28] Jonasson Z. Meta-analysis of sex differences in rodent models of learning and memory: a review of behavioral and biological data. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2005;28(8):811–25.

[29] Sex differences in cognitive function in rodents. In: Luine V, Dohanich G, editors. Sex differences in the brain, from genes to behavior. Oxford: University Press; 2008. p. 227–51.

[30] Hughes RN. Sex does matter: comments on the prevalence of male-only inves- tigations of drug effects on rodent behaviour. Behav Pharmacol 2007;18(7): 583–9.

[31] S. Machin and T. Pekkarinen, Global sex differences in test score variability. Science. 322: 1331-1332

[32] Shors TJ, Miesegeas G. Testosterone in utero and at birth dictates how stressful experiencewill affect learning in adulthood. ProcNatl Acad Sci U SA2002;99(21): 13955–60.

[33] Leuner B, Mendolia-Loffredo S, Shors TJ. High levels of estrogen enhance associative memory formation in ovariectomized females. Psychoneuroendocri- nology 2004;29(7):883–90.

[34] Bowman RE. Stress-induced changes in spatial memory are sexually differen- tiated and vary across the lifespan. J Neuroendocrinol 2005;17(8):526–35.

[35] Bowman RE, Beck KD, Luine VN. Chronic stress effects on memory: sex dif- ferences in performance and monoaminergic activity. Horm Behav 2003;43(1): 48–59.

237C. Dalla, T.J. Shors / Physiology & Behavior 97 (2009) 229–238

[36] McCarthy MM, Konkle AT. When is a sex difference not a sex difference? Front Neuroendocrinol 2005;26(2):85–102.

[37] LuineV. Sexdifferences in chronic stress effects onmemory in rats. Stress 2002;5(3): 205–16.

[38] Beiko J, Lander R, Hampson E, Boon F, Cain DP. Contribution of sex differences in the acute stress response to sex differences in water maze performance in the rat. Behav Brain Res 2004;151(1–2):239–53.

[39] Thompson RF, Krupa DJ. Organization of memory traces in the mammalian brain. Annu Rev Neurosci 1994;17:519–49.

[40] Wolf OT, Minnebusch D, Daum I. Stress impairs acquisition of delay eyeblink conditioning in men and women. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2008, doi:10.1016/ j.nlm.2008.11.002.

[41] Beylin AV, Gandhi CC, Wood GE, Talk AC, Matzel LD, Shors TJ. The role of the hippocampus in trace conditioning: temporal discontinuity or task difficulty? Neurobiol Learn Mem 2001;76(3):447–61.

[42] Solomon PR, Vander Schaaf ER, Thompson RF, Weisz DJ. Hippocampus and trace conditioning of the rabbit's classically conditioned nictitating membrane response. Behav Neurosci 1986;100(5):729–44.

[43] Bangasser DA, Shors TJ. The hippocampus is necessary for enhancements and impairments of learning following stress. Nat Neurosci 2007;10(11):1401–3.

[44] Wood GE, Shors TJ. Stress facilitates classical conditioning in males, but impairs classical conditioning in females through activational effects of ovarian hormones. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998;95(7):4066–71.

[45] Hodes GE, Shors TJ. Distinctive stress effects on learning during puberty. Horm Behav 2005;48(2):163–71.

[46] Shors TJ, Miesegaes G. Testosterone in utero and at birth dictates how stressful experiencewill affect learning in adulthood. ProcNatl Acad Sci U SA 2002;99(21): 13955–60.

[47] Dalla C, Papachristos EB, Whetstone AS, Shors TJ. Female rats learn trace memories better than male rats and consequently retain a greater proportion of new neurons in their hippocampi. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009;106(8):2927–32.

[48] Waddell J, Bangasser DA, Shors TJ. The basolateral nucleus of the amygdala is necessary to induce the opposing effects of stressful experience on learning in males and females. J Neurosci 2008;28(20):5290–4.

[49] Waddell J, Mallimo E, Shors TJ. d-cycloserine reverses stress-induced learning deficits in female rats and additively facilitates learning in stressed males in Society for Neuroscience annual meeting; 2008.

[50] Shors TJ, Miesegaes G, Beylin A, Zhao M, Rydel T, Gould E. Neurogenesis in the adult is involved in the formation of trace memories. Nature 2001;410 (6826):372–6.

[51] Ciano P, Dalla C, Shors TJ. The enhanced learning after acute stressful experience in male rats does not depend on the presence of testosterone during adulthood. Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting; 2008.

[52] Prange-Kiel J, Jarry H, Schoen M, Kohlmann P, Lohse C, Zhou L, et al. Gonadotropin- releasing hormone regulates spine density via its regulatory role in hippocampal estrogen synthesis. J Cell Biol 2008;180(2):417–26.

[53] McCarthy MM. Estradiol and the developing brain. Physiol Rev 2008;88(1): 91–124.

[54] Leuner B, Shors TJ. New spines, new memories. Mol Neurobiol 2004;29(2): 117–30.

[55] Shors TJ, Falduto J, Leuner B. The opposite effects of stress on dendritic spines in male vs. female rats are NMDA receptor-dependent. Eur J Neurosci 2004;19(1): 145–50.

[56] Dalla C, Whetstone AS, Hodes GE, Shors TJ. Stressful experience has opposite effects on dendritic spines in the hippocampus of cycling versus masculinized females. Neurosci Lett 2008;449(1):52–6.

[57] Shors TJ, Chua C, Falduto J. Sex differences and opposite effects of stress on dendritic spine density in the male versus female hippocampus. J Neurosci 2001;21(16):6292–7.

[58] Woolley CS, Gould E, Frankfurt M, McEwen BS. Naturally occurring fluctuation in dendritic spine density on adult hippocampal pyramidal neurons. J Neurosci 1990;10(12):4035–9.

[59] Woolley CS, McEwen BS. Roles of estradiol and progesterone in regulation of hippocampal dendritic spine density during the estrous cycle in the rat. J Comp Neurol 1993;336(2):293–306.

[60] Leuner B, Falduto J, Shors TJ. Associative memory formation increases the observation of dendritic spines in the hippocampus. J Neurosci 2003;23(2): 659–65.

[61] Shors TJ. Stressful experience and learning across the lifespan. Annu Rev Psychol 2006;57:55–85.

[62] Dalla C, Bangasser DA, Edgecomb C, Shors TJ. Neurogenesis and learning: acquisition and asymptotic performance predict how many new cells survive in the hippocampus. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2007;88(1):143–8.

[63] Waddell J, Shors TJ. Neurogenesis, learning and associative strength. Eur J Neurosci 2008;27(11):3020–8.

[64] Gould E, Beylin A, Tanapat P, Reeves A, Shors TJ. Learning enhances adult neurogenesis in the hippocampal formation. Nat Neurosci 1999;2(3):260–5.

[65] Leuner B, Mendolia-Loffredo S, Kozorovitskiy Y, Samburg D, Gould E, Shors TJ. Learning enhances the survival of new neurons beyond the time when the hippocampus is required for memory. J Neurosci 2004;24(34):7477–81.

[66] Maren S, De Oca B, Fanselow MS. Sex differences in hippocampal long-term potentiation (LTP) and Pavlovian fear conditioning in rats: positive correlation between LTP and contextual learning. Brain Res 1994;661(1–2):25–34.

[67] Pryce CR, Lehmann J, Feldon J. Effect of sex on fear conditioning is similar for context and discrete CS in Wistar, Lewis and Fischer rat strains. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1999;64(4):753–9.

[68] Anagnostaras SG, Maren S, DeCola JP, Lane NI, Gale GD, Schlinger BA, et al. Testicular hormones do not regulate sexually dimorphic Pavlovian fear conditioning or perforant-path long-term potentiation in adult male rats. Behav Brain Res 1998;92(1):1–9.

[69] Gupta RR, Sen S, Diepenhorst LL, Rudick CN, Maren S. Estrogen modulates sexually dimorphic contextual fear conditioning and hippocampal long-term potentiation (LTP) in rats(1). Brain Res 2001;888(2):356–65.

[70] Kosten TA, Lee HJ, Kim JJ. Sex-selective effects of neonatal isolation on fear conditioning and foot shock sensitivity. Behav Brain Res 2005;157(2):235–44.

[71] Maes JH. No sex difference in contextual control over the expression of latent inhibition and extinction in Pavlovian fear conditioning in rats. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2002;78(2):258–78.

[72] Shors TJ, Servatius RJ. The contribution of stressor intensity, duration, and context to the stress-induced facilitation of associative learning. Neurobiol Learn Mem 1997;68(1):92–6.

[73] Kosten TA, Lee HJ, Kim JJ. Early life stress impairs fear conditioning in adult male and female rats. Brain Res 2006;1087(1):142–50.

[74] Davis M. Fear-potentiated startle in rats. Curr Protoc Neurosci 2001 Chapter 8: p. Unit 8 11A, doi:10.1002/0471142301.ns0811as14.

[75] de Jongh R, Geyer MA, Olivier B, Groenink L. The effects of sex and neonatal maternal separation on fear-potentiated and light-enhanced startle. Behav Brain Res 2005;161(2):190–6.

[76] Beck KD, Brennan FX, Servatius RJ. Effects of stress on nonassociative learn- ing processes in male and female rats. Integr Physiol Behav Sci 2002;37(2): 128–39.

[77] Beck KD, Jiao X, Cominski TP, Servatius RJ. Estrus cycle stage modifies the presentation of stress-induced startle suppression in female Sprague–Dawley rats. Physiol Behav 2008;93(4–5):1019–23.

[78] Toufexis D. Region- and sex-specific modulation of anxiety behaviours in the rat. J Neuroendocrinol 2007;19(6):461–73.

[79] Hiroi R, Neumaier JF. Differential effects of ovarian steroids on anxiety versus fear as measured by open field test and fear-potentiated startle. Behav Brain Res 2006;166(1):93–100.

[80] Toufexis D, Davis C, Hammond A, Davis M. Sex differences in hormonal modulation of anxiety measured with light-enhanced startle: possible role for arginine vasopressin in the male. J Neurosci 2005;25(39):9010–6.

[81] Walker DL, Davis M. Anxiogenic effects of high illumination levels assessed with the acoustic startle response in rats. Biol Psychiatry 1997;42(6):461–71.

[82] Toufexis DJ, Myers KM, Bowser ME, Davis M. Estrogen disrupts the inhibition of fear in female rats, possibly through the antagonistic effects of estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha) and ERbeta. J Neurosci 2007;27(36):9729–35.

[83] Dalla C, Edgecomb C, Whetstone AS, Shors TJ. Females do not express learned helplessness like males do. Neuropsychopharmacology 2008;33(7):1559–69.

[84] Shors TJ, Mathew J, Sisti HM, Edgecomb C, Beckoff S, Dalla C. Neurogenesis and helplessness are mediated by controllability in males but not in females. Biol Psychiatry 2007;62(5):487–95.

[85] Steenbergen HL, Heinsbroek RP, Van Hest A, Van de Poll NE. Sex-dependent effects of inescapable shock administration on shuttlebox-escape performance and elevated plus-maze behavior. Physiol Behav 1990;48(4):571–6.

[86] Beatty WW, Beatty PA. Hormonal determinants of sex differences in avoidance behavior and reactivity to electric shock in therat. J CompPhysiol Psychol 1970;73(3): 446–55.

[87] Scouten CW, Groteleuschen LK, Beatty WW. Androgens and the organization of sex differences in active avoidance behavior in the rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol 1975;88(1):264–70.

[88] Shors TJ, Seib TB, Levine S, Thompson RF. Inescapable versus escapable shock modulates long-term potentiation in the rat hippocampus. Science 1989;244 (4901):224–6.

[89] Heinsbroek RP, van Oyen HG, van de Poll NE, Boer GJ. Failure of dexamethasone to influence sex differences in acquisition of discriminated lever press avoidance. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1983;19(4):599–604.

[90] Van Oyen HG, Walg H, Van De Poll NE. Discriminated lever press avoidance conditioning in male and female rats. Physiol Behav 1981;26(2):313–7.

[91] Shors TJ. Stress and sex effects on associative learning: for better or for worse. Neuroscientist 1998;4:353–64.

[92] Kirk RC, Blampied NM. Activity during Inescapable shock and subsequent escape avoidance learning: female and male rats compared. New Zealand Journal of Psychology 1985;14:9–14.

[93] Beatty WW, Fessler RG. Ontogeny of sex differences in open-field behavior and sensitivity to electric shock in the rat. Physiol Behav 1976;16(4):413–7.

[94] Dawson JL, Cheung YM, Lau RT. Developmental effects of neonatal sex hormones on spatial and activity skills in the white rat. Biol Psychol 1975;3(3):213–29.

[95] Hyde JF, Jerussi TP. Sexual dimorphism in rats with respect to locomotor activity and circling behavior. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1983;18(5):725–9.

[96] Slob AK, Bogers H, van Stolk MA. Effects of gonadectomy and exogenous gonadal steroids on sex differences in open field behaviour of adult rats. Behav Brain Res 1981;2(3):347–62.

[97] Levine S, Broadhurst PL. Genetic and ontogenetic determinants of adult behavior in the rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol 1963;56:423–8.

[98] Beatty WW, Fessler RG. Gonadectomy and sensitivity to electric shock in the rat. Physiol Behav 1977;19(1):1–6.

[99] Aloisi AM, Bonifazi M. Sex hormones, central nervous system and pain. Horm Behav 2006;50(1):1–7.

[100] Romero MT, Kepler KL, Cooper ML, Komisaruk BR, Bodnar RJ. Modulation of gender-specific effects upon swim analgesia in gonadectomized rats. Physiol Behav 1987;40(1):39–45.

238 C. Dalla, T.J. Shors / Physiology & Behavior 97 (2009) 229–238

[101] Vendruscolo LF, Pamplona FA, Takahashi RN. Strain and sex differences in the expression of nociceptive behavior and stress-induced analgesia in rats. Brain Res 2004;1030(2):277–83.

[102] Diaz-Veliz G, Urresta F, Dussaubat N, Mora S. Effects of estradiol replacement in ovariectomized rats on conditioned avoidance responses and other behaviors. Physiol Behav 1991;50(1):61–5.

[103] Sfikakis A, Spyraki C, Sitaras N, Varonos D. Implication of the estrous cycle on conditioned avoidance behavior in the rat. Physiol Behav 1978;21(3):441–6.

[104] Telegdy G, Stark A. Effect of sexual steroids and androgen sterilization on avoidance and exploratory behaviour in the rat. Acta Physiol Acad Sci Hung 1973;43(1):55–63.

[105] Toufexis DJ, Myers KM, Davis M. The effect of gonadal hormones and gender on anxiety and emotional learning. Horm Behav 2006;50(4):539–49.

[106] Denti A, Negroni JA. Activity and learning in neonatally hormone treated rats. Acta Physiol Lat Am 1975;25(2):99–106.

[107] van Hest A, van Haaren F, van de Poll NE. Behavioral differences between male and femaleWistar rats in food rewarded lever holding. Physiol Behav 1987;39(2): 263–7.

[108] van Hest A, van Haaren F, van de Poll NE. Behavioral differences between male and female Wistar rats on DRL schedules: effect of stimuli promoting collateral activities. Physiol Behav 1987;39(2):255–61.

[109] Beatty WW. Effects of gonadectomy on sex differences in DRL behavior. Physiol Behav 1973;10(1):177–8.

[110] Moss RL. Changes in bar-press duration accompanying the estrous cycle. J Comp Physiol Psychol 1968;66(2):460–6.

[111] Flaisher-Grinberg S, Albelda N, Gitter L, Weltman K, Arad M, Joel D. Ovarian hormones modulate ‘compulsive’ lever-pressing in female rats. Horm Behav 2008;55(2):356–65.

[112] Maier SF. Learned helplessness and animal models of depression. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 1984;8(3):435–46.

[113] Seligman ME, Beagley G. Learned helplessness in the rat. J Comp Physiol Psychol 1975;88(2):534–41.

[114] Bethus I, Lemaire V, Lhomme M, Goodall G. Does prenatal stress affect latent inhibition? It depends on the gender. Behav Brain Res 2005;158(2):331–8.

[115] Randall-Thompson JF, Riley AL. Morphine-induced conditioned taste aversions: assessment of sexual dimorphism. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2003;76(2): 373–81.

[116] Rinker JA, Busse GD, Riley AL. An assessment of sex differences in nicotine- induced conditioned taste aversions. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2008;88(4): 427–31.

[117] Chambers KC. Hormonal influences on sexual dimorphism in rate of extinction of a conditioned taste aversion in rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol 1976;90(9):851–6.

[118] Chambers KC, Sengstake CB, Yoder RL, Thornton JE. Sexually dimorphic acquisition of a conditioned taste aversion in rats: effects of gonadectomy, testosterone replacement and water deprivation. Physiol Behav 1981;27(1): 83–8.

[119] Yuan DL, Chambers KC. Estradiol accelerates extinction of lithium chloride- induced conditioned taste aversions through its illness-associated properties. Horm Behav 1999;36(3):287–98.

[120] Yuan DL, Chambers KC. Estradiol accelerates extinction of a conditioned taste aversion in female and male rats. Horm Behav 1999;36(1):1–16.

[121] Riley AL, Diamond HF. The effects of cocaine preexposure on the acquisition of cocaine-induced taste aversions. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1998;60(3):739–45.

[122] Dalla C, Antoniou K, Drossopoulou G, Xagoraris M, Kokras N, Sfikakis A, et al. Chronic mild stress impact: are females more vulnerable? Neuroscience 2005;135(3):703–14.

[123] Busse GD, Freeman KB, Riley AL. The interaction of sex and route of drug administration in cocaine-induced conditioned taste aversions. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2005;81(4):814–20.

[124] Clarke SN, Ossenkopp KP. Taste reactivity responses in rats: influence of sex and the estrous cycle. Am J Physiol 1998;274(3 Pt 2):R718–724.

[125] Jones JD, Busse GD, Riley AL. Strain-dependent sex differences in the effects of alcohol on cocaine-induced taste aversions. Pharmacol BiochemBehav 2006;83(4): 554–60.

[126] Roma PG, Davis CM, Kohut SJ, Huntsberry ME, Riley AL. Early maternal separation and sex differences in the aversive effects of amphetamine in adult rats. Physiol Behav 2008;93(4–5):897–904.

[127] RothME, Cosgrove KP, CarrollME. Sex differences in the vulnerability to drug abuse: a review of preclinical studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2004;28(6):533–46.

[128] Russo SJ, Festa ED, Fabian SJ, Gazi FM, Kraish M, Jenab S, et al. Gonadal hormones differentially modulate cocaine-induced conditioned place preference in male and female rats. Neuroscience 2003;120(2):523–33.

[129] Russo SJ, Jenab S, Fabian SJ, Festa ED, Kemen LM, Quinones-Jenab V. Sex differ- ences in the conditioned rewarding effects of cocaine. Brain Res 2003;970(1–2): 214–20.

[130] Choleris E, Thomas AW, Ossenkopp K, Kavaliers M, Valsecchi P, Prato FS. Sex differences in conditioned taste aversion and in the effects of exposure to a specific pulsed magnetic field in deer mice Peromyscus maniculatus. Physiol Behav 2000;71(3–4):237–49.

[131] Roof RL, Havens MD. Testosterone improves maze performance and induces development of a male hippocampus in females. Brain Res 1992;572(1–2):310–3.

[132] Zhang JM, Konkle AT, Zup SL, McCarthy MM. Impact of sex and hormones on new cells in the developing rat hippocampus: a novel source of sex dimorphism? Eur J Neurosci 2008;27(4):791–800.