4.6 Article

Selective hippocampal cholinergic deafferentation impairs self-movement cue use during a food hoarding task

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 183, 期 1, 页码 78-86

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2007.05.026

关键词

medial septum; dead reckoning; spatial mapping; path integration; long-evans species

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [R15 NS051218, R15 NS051218-01A1, NS051218] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Investigations using selective lesion techniques suggest that the septohippocampal cholinergic system may not be critical for spatial orientation. These studies employ spatial tasks that provide the animal with access to both environmental and self-movement cues; therefore, intact performance may reflect spared spatial orientation or compensatory mechanisms associated with one class of spatial cues. The present study investigated the contribution of the septohippocampal cholinergic system to spatial behavior by examining performance in foraging tasks in which cue availability was manipulated. Thirteen female Long-Evans rats received selective lesions of the medial septum/vertical band with 192 IgG saporin, and 11 received sham surgeries. Rats were trained to forage for hazelnuts in an environment with access to both environmental and self-movement cues (cued condition). Manipulations include altering availability of environmental cues associated with the refuge (uncued probe), removing all visual environmental cues (dark probe), and placing environmental and self-movement cues into conflict (reversal probe). Medial septum lesions disrupted homeward segment topography only under conditions in which self-movement Cues were critical for organizing food hoarding behavior (dark and reversal). These results are consistent with medial septum lesions producing a selective impairment in self-movement cue processing and suggest that these rats were able to compensate for deficits in self-movement cue processing when provided access to environmental cues. (C) 2007 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