4.7 Article

Novelty and Anxiolytic Drugs Dissociate Two Components of Hippocampal Theta in Behaving Rats

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 33, 期 20, 页码 8650-8667

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5040-12.2013

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  2. Royal Society
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. Medical Research Council
  5. European Union SpaceBrain
  6. Institute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds
  7. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G01342X/1, BB/G01342X/2] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Medical Research Council [G1000854] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. BBSRC [BB/G01342X/1, BB/G01342X/2] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. MRC [G1000854] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hippocampal processing is strongly implicated in both spatial cognition and anxiety and is temporally organized by the theta rhythm. However, there has been little attempt to understand how each type of processing relates to the other in behaving animals, despite their common substrate. In freely moving rats, there is a broadly linear relationship between hippocampal theta frequency and running speed over the normal range of speeds used during foraging. A recent model predicts that spatial-translation-related and arousal/anxiety-related mechanisms of hippocampal theta generation underlie dissociable aspects of the theta frequency-running speed relationship (the slope and intercept, respectively). Here we provide the first confirmatory evidence: environmental novelty decreases slope, whereas anxiolytic drugs reduce intercept. Variation in slope predicted changes in spatial representation by CA1 place cells and novelty-responsive behavior. Variation in intercept predicted anxiety-like behavior. Our findings isolate and doubly dissociate two components of theta generation that operate in parallel in behaving animals and link them to anxiolytic drug action, novelty, and the metric for self-motion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据