4.6 Article

Enhancing effects of chronic lithium on memory in the rat

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 177, 期 1, 页码 51-60

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2006.11.003

关键词

lithium; working rnernory; passive avoidance retention; T-maze; alternation; rat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In spite of recent enrichment of neurochemical and behavioural data establishing a neuroprotective role lot lithium, its primary effects on cognitive functioning remain ambiguous. This study examines chronic lithium effects on spatial working memory and long-term retention. Methods: In three discrete experiments, rats subjected to 30 daily intraperitoneal injections (2 mmol/kg) of lithium (lithium groups: serum lithium = 0.5 +/- 0.4 mEq/l, 12 h post-injection) or saline (controls) were trained in 0-s delay T-maze alternation and then tested in 30-, 45- and 60-s delay alternation (Experiments 1, 2, 3, respectively). Animals from Experiment 1 were further tested in one-trial step-through passive avoidance under mild shock parameters (0.5 mA, 1 s). Retention was assessed 6 h later. Daily lithium or saline injections continued throughout behavioural testing. Results: Lithium animals were indistinguishable from controls during 0-delay alternation baseline (Experiments 1-3. accuracy > 88%) but showed significantly higher accuracy than controls at 30- and 45-s delays (93% versus 85% and 92% versus 82%, Experiments 1 and 2, respectively). At 60-s delay (Experiment 3) this beneficial effect of lithium was no longer apparent (lithium and control accuracy = 78%). In Experiment 4, the shock used did not Support 6-h passive avoidance retention in controls, whereas lithium animals showed significant step-through latency increases. Conclusions: Chronic lithium enhanced spatial working memory and promoted long-term retention of a weak aversive contingency. The results suggest that lithium may have potential as a cognitive enhancer. (c) 2006 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