Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28108176›Full record

ArticlePharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior2017

Differential housing and novelty response: Protection and risk from locomotor sensitization.

Erik J Garcia, Tara N Haddon, Donald A Saucier, Mary E Cain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Locomotor Response to Novelty: What Does It Tell Us?Developmental psychobiology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Erik J GarciaKansas State University, Department of Psychological Sciences, 492 Bluemont Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506-5302, United States. Electronic address: ejgarcia@k-state.edu.
Tara N HaddonKansas State University, Department of Psychological Sciences, 492 Bluemont Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506-5302, United States.
Donald A SaucierKansas State University, Department of Psychological Sciences, 492 Bluemont Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506-5302, United States. Electronic address: saucier@k-state.edu.
Mary E CainKansas State University, Department of Psychological Sciences, 492 Bluemont Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506-5302, United States. Electronic address: mecain@k-state.edu.

Funding

The Effects of Differential Rearing on Glutamate Homeostasis and AddictionR15DA035435 · NIDA · KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY · PI CAIN, MARY EILEEN · 2013 to 2018
$945k
NIDA NIH HHS R15 DA035435
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High novelty seeking increases the risk for drug experimentation and locomotor sensitization. Locomotor sensitization to psychostimulants is thought to reflect neurological adaptations that promote the transition to compulsive drug taking. Rats reared in enrichment (EC) show less locomotor sensitization when compared to rats reared in isolation (IC) or standard conditions (SC). The current research study was designed to test if novelty response contributed locomotor sensitization and more importantly, if the different housing environments could change the novelty response to protect against the development of locomotor sensitization in both adolescence and adulthood. Experiment 1: rats were tested for their response to novelty using the inescapable novelty test (IEN) and pseudorandomly assigned to enriched (EC), isolated (IC), or standard (SC) housing conditions for 30days. After housing, they were tested with IEN. Rats were then administered amphetamine (0.5mg/kg) or saline and locomotor activity was measured followed by a sensitization test 14days later. Experiment 2: rats were tested in the IEN test early adulthood and given five administrations of amphetamine (0.3mg/kg) or saline and then either stayed in or switched housing environments for 30days. Rats were then re-tested in the IEN test in late adulthood and administered five more injections of their respective treatments and tested for locomotor sensitization. Results indicate that IC and SC increased the response to novelty. EC housing decreased locomotor response to amphetamine and saline, and SC housing increased the locomotor response to amphetamine. Mediation results indicated that the late adult novelty response fully mediates the locomotor response to amphetamine and saline, while the early adulthood novelty response did not.

conclusionsDifferential housing changes novelty and amphetamine locomotor response. Novelty response is altered into adulthood and provides evidence that enrichment can be used to reduce drug vulnerability.

Indexed as

Exploratory BehaviorHousing, AnimalAmphetamineAnimalsCentral Nervous System SensitizationDose-Response Relationship, DrugLocomotionMaleRatsAmphetamineAmphetamineDifferential rearing/housingEnrichmentMediation and predictionNovelty and sensation seekingSensitization

Identifiers

PMID28108176
PMCPMC5370571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.