Nicotine, eserine, and apomorphine increased, and atropine, methylatropine, and haloperidol decreased SB performance in both the DC and the DPC test the effect of the two former substances could be antagonized by any of the two anticholinergic agents, and haloperidol antagonized that of apomorphine. Clonidine depressed responding in the DP and DPC paradigms, and its effect was blocked by phenoxybenzamine. Eserine depressed SBs in the D test, starting from the first block of buzzers its effect was antagonized by atropine and by methylatropine. This was interpreted as showing that during the first 10 buzzers drive was the main (or the only) factor influencing SB performance in all groups after the third block of 5 buzzers ‘contingency’ became a factor on its own and ‘pairing’ assumed some control over SB behavior only from the fifth block on. At all blocks the sum of SBs obtained in the D test, plus DP-D, plus DC-D, gave a value quite close to that experimentally determined in the DPC group. An analysis of the distribution of SB performance in control animals over the 10 successive blocks of 5 buzzers of each session revealed that the response level was similar for all tests during the first 2 blocks that of the DC and DPC groups increased above the level of the other two from the third block on and from the fifth block on, SB performance was higher in the DPC than in the DC group and in the DP over the D group. Shock-induced drive was assumed to equally pervade all four situations stimulus contiguity (‘pairing’) was present only in the DP and DPC tests and the avoidance ‘contingency’ was present only in the DC and DPC paradigms. See the comment section for the preprint.The effects of eserine (0.1 mg/kg), nicotine (0.2 mg/kg), atropine (2 mg/kg), methylatropine (5 mg/kg), clonidine (0.2 mg/kg), phenoxybenzamine (10 mg/kg), apomorphine (0.5 mg/kg), and haloperidol (0.5 mg/kg), ip.p., on shuttle responses to a buzzer (SBs) were studied on four different behavioral paradigms in rats: (a) D test: 50 buzzers and 25 shocks at random intervals and in random order (b) DP test: 50 buzzers paired on all trials with shocks irrespective of the performance of SBs (Pavlovian conditioning) (c) DC test: 50 buzzers followed at a randomly variable interval by shocks unless there was an SB (d) DPC test: 50 buzzer-shock trials omitting shocks every time there was an SB (two-way avoidance). The outputs from this paper can support the decision-making processes of Standard Instrument Departure (SID) planning, flight planners, and pilots. We discussed with air traffic controllers, ATC consultant, and pilots to ensure that our derived flight trajectory optimization solutions are relevant and make sense, while still prioritizing the scientific contribution of the work. Quick access recorder (QAR) data from a major airline were used to calibrate and impose realistic constraints to our fuel prediction model. Our approach bridges computational solution methods and real-world applications by effectively modeling regulatory and operational constraints and incorporating them into the optimization. Our paper (with my recent PhD graduate Dajung Kim) on departure flight path optimization, with fuel and noise consideration, has been published in AIAA Journal.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |