ArticlePsychopharmacology2012
Facilitation of extinction of operant behaviour in C57Bl/6 mice by chlordiazepoxide and D-cycloserine.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Activation of alpha7 nicotinic and NMDA receptors is necessary for performance in a working memory task.Psychopharmacology · 2020Article
- Article
- Why behavior change is difficult to sustain.Preventive medicine · 2014Review
- Enhancement of extinction learning attenuates ethanol-seeking behavior and alters plasticity in the prefrontal cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2014Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectiveEffects on the extinction of GABAergic drug, chlordiazepoxide (CDP), and glutamatergic drug, D: -cycloserine (DCS), in C57BL/6 mice were compared. MATERIALS AND
methodsFollowing a palatability test (Experiment 1), Experiments 2-6 involved food-reinforced lever press training followed by extinction sessions at 1- or 4-day intervals. The effects of drugs were examined. Experiment 7 involved a two-lever task.
resultsCDP did not affect food palatability (Experiment 1), but facilitated extinction when administered prior to extinction sessions via intracerebral (Experiment 2) or peripheral administration at 1-day (Experiments 3-7) or 4-day intervals (Experiment 6). Reducing the amount of training prior to extinction reduced the delay in the effect of CDP typically seen, and CDP had a larger effect in early sessions on mice that had received less training (Experiment 3). There was some evidence that CDP could be blocked by flumazenil (Experiment 4), and CDP withdrawal reversed extinction facilitation (Experiments 5 and 7). With 4-day intervals, DCS administered immediately following extinction sessions, or pre-session CDP, facilitated extinction with 48-trial sessions (experiment 6B). With six-trial sessions, the co-administration of post-session DCS enhanced facilitation produced by pre-session CDP (experiment 6A). Finally, CDP facilitated extinction in a dose-related fashion following training on a two-lever food-reinforced task (Experiment 7).
conclusionsThe findings are consistent with the hypotheses that two neurotransmitter systems have different roles in operant extinction and that glutamatergic systems are involved in extinction learning and GABAergic systems involved in the expression of that learning. This parallels findings with extinction following Pavlovian conditioning, which has been more extensively investigated.
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.