4.6 Article

Latent inhibition in rats neonatally treated chronically with MK-801: Differential effects on conditioned taste aversion and conditioned emotional response

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 283, 期 -, 页码 102-107

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2015.01.029

关键词

Latent inhibition; NMDA receptor blockade; Conditioned taste aversion; Conditioned emotional response; Chronic neonatal treatment; Rat

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [26590174, 24530909]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23330201, 26590174, 24530909] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic neonatal blockade of N-methyl-n-aspartate (NMDA) receptors produces various abnormal behaviors in adulthood animals. This study investigated the effects of neonatal treatment chronically with MK-801 in rats on the preexposure-induced retardation of CS-US association, i.e. latent inhibition (LI), of two aversive classical conditioning tasks in adulthood. In conditioned taste aversion (CTA) using sucrose taste and LiCl, neonatal chronic MK-801 (0.4 mg/kg twice/day) treatment attenuated the inhibitory effect of sucrose preexposure on the aversive conditioning, although the treatment did not affect CTA conditioning itself. On the other hand, in conditioned emotional response (CER) using tone and electrical foot shock, rats neonatally treated with MK-801 showed the same degree of inhibitory effect of tone preexposure on the aversive conditioning compared with neonatally vehicle-treated rats, and also showed the same level of CER conditioning itself. Thus, the effect of chronic neonatal blockade of NMDA receptors on the LI of classical conditioning in adulthood was differentiated by the task employed. Results suggest that LI of CTA paradigm compared with that of CER is more sensitive to abnormal development after chronic neonatal blockade of NMDA receptors as an index of cognitive/attentional deficits caused by the treatment. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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