4.4 Article

Effects of oxytocin on background anxiety in rats with high or low baseline startle

期刊

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 233, 期 11, 页码 2165-2172

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-016-4267-0

关键词

Startle; Oxytocin; Fear; Anxiety

资金

  1. NIMH [1R01MH094812-01A1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oxytocin has antianxiety properties in humans and rodents. However, the antianxiety effects have been variable. To reduce variability and to strengthen the antianxiety effect of oxytocin in fear-potentiated startle, two experiments were performed. First, different amounts of light-shock pairings were given to determine the optimal levels of cue-specific fear conditioning and non-predictable startle (background anxiety). Second, the antianxiety effects of oxytocin were examined in rats with high and low pre-fear conditioning baseline startle to determine if oxytocin differentially affects high and low trait anxiety rats. Baseline pre-fear conditioning startle responses were first measured. Rats then received 1, 5, or 10 light-shock pairings. Fear-potentiated startle was then tested with two trial types: light-cued startle and non-cued startle trials. In the second experiment, rats fear conditioned with 10 light-shock pairings were administered either saline or oxytocin before a fear-potentiated startle test. Rats were categorized as low or high startlers by their pre-fear conditioning startle amplitude. Ten shock pairings produced the largest non-cued startle responses (background anxiety), without increasing cue-specific fear-potentiated startle compared to one and five light-shock pairings. Cue-specific fear-potentiated startle was unaffected by oxytocin. Oxytocin reduced background anxiety only in rats with low pre-fear startle responses. Oxytocin has population selective antianxiety effects on non-cued unpredictable threat, but only in rats with low pre-fear baseline startle responses. The low startle responses are reminiscent of humans with low startle responses and high trait anxiety.

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

4.4
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