ArticleNeurobiology of learning and memory2018
Inactivation of the interpositus nucleus blocks the acquisition of conditioned responses and timing changes in conditioning-specific reflex modification of the rabbit eyeblink response.
Article in Neurobiology of learning and memory, 2018. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Training on multiple days results in better learning in embedded eyeblink conditioning in young human adults.NPJ science of learning · 2025Article
- Inactivation of the interpositus nucleus during unpaired extinction does not prevent extinction of conditioned eyeblink responses or conditioning-specific reflex modification.Behavioral neuroscience · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Conditioning-specific reflex modification (CRM) of the rabbit eyeblink response is an associative phenomenon characterized by increases in the frequency, size, and peak latency of the reflexive unconditioned eyeblink response (UR) when the periorbital shock unconditioned stimulus (US) is presented alone following conditioning, particularly to lower intensity USs that produced minimal responding prior to conditioning. Previous work has shown that CRM shares many commonalities with the conditioned eyeblink response (CR) including a similar response topography, suggesting the two may share similar neural substrates. The following study examined the hypothesis that the interpositus nucleus (IP) of the cerebellum, an essential part of the neural circuitry of eyeblink conditioning, is also required for the acquisition of CRM. Tests for CRM occurred following delay conditioning under muscimol inactivation of the IP and also after additional conditioning without IP inactivation. Results showed that IP inactivation blocked acquisition of CRs and the timing aspect of CRM but did not prevent increases in UR amplitude and area. Following the cessation of inactivation, CRs and CRM latency changes developed similarly to controls with intact IP functioning, but with some indication that CRs may have been facilitated in muscimol rabbits. In conclusion, CRM timing and CRs both likely require the development of plasticity in the IP, but other associative UR changes may involve non-cerebellar structures interacting with the eyeblink conditioning circuitry, a strong candidate being the amygdala, which is also likely involved in the facilitation of conditioning. Other candidates worth consideration include the cerebellar cortex, prefrontal and motor cortices.
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.