ArticlePsychopharmacology2009
Cognitive effects of psychotomimetic drugs in rats discriminating number cues.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comprehensive evaluation of adverse childhood experiences, social-emotional impairments, and neurodevelopmental disorders in cannabis-use disorder: Implications for clinical practice.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2023Article
- Stress-induced impairments in prefrontal-mediated behaviors and the role of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor.Neuroscience · 2012Review
- Disruption of performance in the five-choice serial reaction time task induced by administration of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists: relevance to cognitive dysfunction in schizophrenia.Biological psychiatry · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleDeficits in memory and attention are broadly acknowledged during psychosis; however, experiments on modeled psychosis often test working memory without systematic manipulation of attentional demands.
objectivesThe major research goal was discovering which neurobehavioral processes, attention, or memory contributed more to drug-provoked performance deficits. MATERIALS AND
methodsRats were trained to perform operant ratio discrimination (RD) tasks wherein the number of presses at a rear-wall lever was discriminated using one of two front-wall levers. Effects from four psychotomimetic drugs, the serotonin agonist 2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodoamphetamine, the noncompetitive NMDA-glutamate receptor antagonist phencyclidine (PCP), and two CB1-selective cannabinoid agonists, WIN 55,512-2 and AM 411, were assessed using a signal detection analytical overlay to dissociate cognitive from noncognitive motor and motivational disruptions. Further methods allowed dissociation of attention compromises from mnemonic deficits.
resultsFor each test compound, at least one dose elicited decreased RD accuracy without affecting response rates, and task difficulty was shown to be a crucial dictator of accuracy effect specificities. Effects from both PCP and WIN 55,512-2 biased animals to select the response lever conditioned for denser reinforcement. The same two drugs rendered peculiar response patterns in distracter light session components, considering light blinks were included to divert subjects' attention away from task-relevant information. The response patterns determined during distracter components of PCP/WIN testing sessions, counterintuitively, suggest performance enhancement.
conclusionComprehensive viewing of RD performance patterns after drug administration indicates that sustained attention and transient information management are significantly impaired during the drug-induced psychosis state, while selective attention is less affected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.