ArticleBehavioural brain research2019
Differential involvement of amygdalar NMDA receptors across variants of contextual fear conditioning in adolescent rats.
Article in Behavioural brain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- NMDA receptors and the ontogeny of post-shock and retention freezing during contextual fear conditioning.Developmental psychobiology · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In standard contextual fear conditioning (sCFC), learning of the context and formation of the context-shock association occur in the same training session whereas in the context preexposure facilitation effect (CPFE) learning the context (preexposure) and the context-shock association (training) are separated by 24 h. In both procedures conditioned freezing can be measured immediately (post-shock test) or during a 24-hour retention test. In adult rats, disrupting basolateral amygdala (BLA) activity or plasticity during training on sCFC impairs both post-shock and retention freezing [Maren et al, 1996; 1]. This manipulation on the training day of the CPFE disrupts retention freezing but effects on post-shock freezing are unknown [Matus-Amat et al, 2007; 2]. Experiment 1 extended this literature from adult to adolescent rats and to the role of BLA activity and plasticity in post-shock freezing during the CPFE. Intra-BLA infusions of muscimol prior to the training day of the CPFE disrupted both post-shock and retention freezing in Postnatal Day (PD) 31-33 rats. In the second two experiments, intra-BLA infusions of APV prior to the training day of sCFC disrupted retention but not post-shock freezing, while infusions of APV prior to training of the CPFE disrupt both post-shock and retention freezing. Our findings suggest that the BLA plasticity plays a different role in the CPFE vs. sCFC. Its role in the CPFE is similar in both adolescent and adult rats, while the role of the BLA in post-shock freezing during sCFC may differ across age or across studies that employ different procedures or parameters.
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.