4.6 Article

Extradural compression of the sensorimotor cortex delays the acquisition but not the recalling of a lever-pressing task in Wistar rats

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 164, 期 2, 页码 250-265

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2005.06.013

关键词

operant behaviour; working memory; cognitive deficits; extradural compression; lever pressing; Fluoro-Jade

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The learning and recalling of a lever-press task (LPT) after brief unilateral extradural compression (EC) of the right sensorimotor cortex was studied in Wistar rats. All rats, regardless of the time-point for EC, were trained to lever press for food from D(day) 1 to D6. On D8, the position of the active lever was changed to the right side of the operant box and performance was tested until D14. Total and active lever presses, as well as % errors were used to analyse the performance. Rats submitted to EC 24h before initiating the LPT schedule (naive-compressed group) showed delayed task acquisition and impaired performance until D10. No significant impairments were detected by D3 on a beam-walking test, excluding paresis as the cause to the delay. Rats submitted to EC after they learned the LPT (trained-compressed group) showed only mildly impaired post-compression performance with no effects on the recalling of the task. Using a progressive ratio LPT, the maximum number of presses to obtain a food-pellet (breaking point) was significantly reduced 24 h after EC suggesting reduced motivation for the task early after brain injury. The delayed acquisition of the LPT in naive-compressed rats was accompanied by consistent cortical, striatal and thalamic degeneration detected by Fluoro-Jade and anti-glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) staining, whereas the improvement in the performance of this group was accompanied by a reduction of the cortical damage on D10. Recall of the LPT in trained-compressed rats was not altered by EC, suggesting the contribution of compensatory mechanisms. (c) 2005 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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