ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2015
Validation of a method to assess ADHD-related impulsivity in animal models.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hyperactive MEK1 Signaling in Cortical GABAergic Neurons Promotes Embryonic Parvalbumin Neuron Loss and Defects in Behavioral Inhibition.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2021Article
- Interval timing under a behavioral microscope: Dissociating motivational and timing processes in fixed-interval performance.Learning & behavior · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResponse inhibition capacity (RIC), the ability to withhold instrumentally reinforced responses, is compromised in ADHD. Most standard methods for assessing RIC in rodents potentially confound motivational, motor, learning, and inhibitory processes, lack sensitivity to pharmacological treatment, and have unknown reliability. NEW
methodThe fixed minimum interval (FMI) schedule of reinforcement and its associated analytical techniques are designed to dissociate inhibitory processes from incentive-motivational and timing processes. This study is aimed at validating the FMI as a method for assessing RIC in animal models. FMI performance was compared across different withholding requirements (0.5, 3, 6 and 21s), deprivation levels, reinforcement rates, and reinforcer magnitudes. RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH EXISTING
methodsMotivational manipulations differentially affected estimates of incentive motivation but not the FMI-derived index of RIC, θ. Changes in the withholding requirement influenced timed IRTs in a manner consistent with extant timing theories. Individual estimates of RIC were resilient to prolonged changes in motivation but not to changes in FMI schedule. Results indicate that the FMI schedule is not vulnerable to the same limitations associated with existing methods for assessing RIC.
conclusionsThese results support the use of the FMI schedule and associated analytic techniques as tools for assessing RIC in animal models.
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.