4.5 Article

Learning ability in aged beagle dogs is preserved by behavioral enrichment and dietary fortification: a two-year longitudinal study

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 77-90

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2004.02.014

关键词

antioxidants; beagle; mitochondrial co-factors; discrimination and reversal learning; behavioral enrichment; aging

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG12694] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG012694, R37AG012694] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effectiveness of two interventions, dietary fortification with antioxidants and a program of behavioral enrichment, was assessed in a longitudinal study of cognitive aging in beagle dogs. A baseline protocol of cognitive testing was used to select four cognitively equivalent groups: control food-control experience (C-C), control food-enriched experience (C-E), antioxidant fortified food-control experience (A-C), and antioxidant fortified food-enriched experience(A-E). We also included two groups of young behaviorally enriched dogs, one receiving the control food and the other the fortified food. Discrimination learning and reversal was assessed after one year of treatment with a size discrimination task, and again after two years with a black/white discrimination task. The four aged groups were comparable at baseline. At one and two years, the aged combined treatment group showed more accurate learning than the other aged groups. Discrimination learning was significantly improved by behavioral enrichment. Reversal learning was improved by both behavioral enrichment and dietary fortification. By contrast, the fortified food had no effect on the young dogs. These results suggest that behavioral enrichment or dietary fortification with antioxidants over a long-duration can slow age-dependent cognitive decline, and that the two treatments together are more effective than either alone in older dogs. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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