ArticleEuropean neuropsychopharmacology : the journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology2018
Nicotine improves probabilistic reward learning in wildtype but not alpha7 nAChR null mutants, yet alpha7 nAChR agonists do not improve probabilistic learning.
Article in European neuropsychopharmacology : the journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex-dependent differences in the ability of nicotine to modulate discrimination learning and cognitive flexibility in mice.Journal of neurochemistry · 2025Article
- Modulation of ventromedial orbitofrontal cortical glutamatergic activity affects the explore-exploit balance and influences value-based decision-making.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- Cognitive [Computational] Neuroscience Test Reliability and Clinical Applications for Serious Mental Illness (CNTRaCS) Consortium: Progress and Future Directions.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Cognitive impairments, e.g., reward learning, are present in various psychiatric disorders and warrant treatment. Improving reward-related learning could synergistically enhance psychosocial treatments and cognition generally. A critical first step is to understand the mechanisms underlying reward learning. The dopamine system has been implicated in such learning, but less known is how indirect activation of this system may affect reward learning. We determined the role of alpha7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR) on a probabilistic reversal learning task (PRLT) in mice that includes reward and punishment. Male alpha7 knockout (KO), heterozygous (HT), and wildtype (WT) littermate mice (n = 84) were treated with vehicle, 0.03, or 0.3 mg/kg nicotine. Two cohorts of C57BL/6NJ male mice were treated with various alpha7 nAChR ligands, including the full agonists PNU282877 and AR-R-17779, the positive allosteric modulator CCMI, the partial agonist SSR180711, and the antagonist methyllycaconitine. All mice were then tested in the PRLT. Nicotine (0.3 mg/kg) significantly improved initial reward learning in alpha7 WT and HT mice but did not improve learning in KO mice, suggesting an involvement of the alpha7 nAChR in the pro-learning effects of nicotine. Neither alpha7 nAChR treatments (PNU282987, AR-R-17779, CCMI, SSR180711, nor methyllycaconitine) affected mouse PRLT performance however. Nicotine improved reward learning via a mechanism that may include alpha7 nAChRs. This improvement unlikely relied solely on alpha7 nAChRs however, since no alpha7 nAChR ligand improved reward learning in normal mice. Future assessments of the effects of other nAChR subtypes on reward learning are needed.
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.