4.3 Article

D-cycloserine facilitates procedural learning but not declarative learning in healthy humans: A randomized controlled trial of the effect of D-cycloserine and valproic acid on overnight properties in the performance of non-emotional memory tasks

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF LEARNING AND MEMORY
卷 95, 期 4, 页码 505-509

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.nlm.2011.02.017

关键词

D-cycloserine; Valproic acid; Overnight improvement; Declarative learning; Procedural learning

资金

  1. Japan Science and Technology (JST) Corporation
  2. Ministry of Education, Sports, Science, and Culture of Japan [21790235]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22700279, 23330218, 21790235] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although D-cycloserine (DCS), a partial agonist of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor, and valproic acid (VPA), a histone deacetylase inhibitor, have been investigated for their roles in the facilitation of emotional learning, the effects on non-emotional declarative and procedural learning have not been clarified. We performed a randomized, blind, placebo-controlled, 4-arm clinical trial to determine the effects of DCS and VPA on the overnight properties of declarative and procedural learning in 60 healthy adults. Subjects were orally administrated a placebo, 100 mg DCS, 400 mg VPA, or a combination of 100 mg DCS and 400 mg VPA before they performed declarative and procedural learning tasks. Subjects then had their performance retested the following day. We observed that DCS facilitated procedural but not declarative learning and that VPA did not contribute to learning. Surprisingly, however, VPA attenuated the enhancement effect of DCS when coadministered with it. These results suggest that DCS acts as an enhancer of hippocampus-independent learning and that VPA may have an extinguishing pharmacological effect on excitatory post-synaptic action potentials that NMDA receptors regulate within procedural learning. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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