4.7 Article

The touchscreen operant platform for testing learning and memory in rats and mice

Journal

NATURE PROTOCOLS
Volume 8, Issue 10, Pages 1961-1984

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2013.122

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries [115008]
  2. European Union [241995, 242167]
  3. Wellcome Trust/Medical Research Council [089703/Z/09/Z]
  4. Alzheimer's Research UK [ART/PG2006/5]
  5. Swedish Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences
  6. NIAAA Intramural Research Program
  7. Alzheimers Research UK [ART-ESG2010-1, ART-PG2006-5] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Medical Research Council [G1000183B, G0001354B, G0001354, MC_G1000734] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. MRC [MC_G1000734] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An increasingly popular method of assessing cognitive functions in rodents is the automated touchscreen platform, on which a number of different cognitive tests can be run in a manner very similar to touchscreen methods currently used to test human subjects. This methodology is low stress (using appetitive rather than aversive reinforcement), has high translational potential and lends itself to a high degree of standardization and throughput. Applications include the study of cognition in rodent models of psychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases (e. g., Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, Huntington's disease, frontotemporal dementia), as well as the characterization of the role of select brain regions, neurotransmitter systems and genes in rodents. This protocol describes how to perform four touchscreen assays of learning and memory: visual discrimination, object-location paired-associates learning, visuomotor conditional learning and autoshaping. It is accompanied by two further protocols (also published in this issue) that use the touchscreen platform to assess executive function, working memory and pattern separation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available