ArticleBehavioural pharmacology2018
Vigilance demand and the effects of stimulant drugs in a five-choice reaction-time procedure in mice.
Article in Behavioural pharmacology, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Efficacy of Chronic Galantamine on Sustained Attention and Cholinergic Neurotransmission in A Pre-Clinical Model of Traumatic Brain Injury.Journal of neurotrauma · 2024Article
- Methylphenidate modulates motor cortical dynamics and behavior.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Prevention of age-associated neuronal hyperexcitability with improved learning and attention upon knockout or antagonism of LPAR2.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Stimulant drugs used for treating attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) increase signal-detection accuracy in five-choice serial reaction-time procedures. These increases may result from drug-induced increases in control exerted by the stimuli that prompt responses, which was assessed in the present study. Mice were trained with food reinforcement to nose poke into one of five holes after its illumination (signal), and effects of methylphenidate, d-amphetamine, and pentobarbital were assessed. Subsequently, the time from trial onset to signal was changed from fixed to variable for one group of subjects. A 'warning' stimulus (change in ambient lighting) preceding the signal was added for a second group. Effects of the drugs were reassessed. Dose-related increases in accuracy of signal detection (nose pokes in hole where a signal was displayed) were obtained with methylphenidate and d-amphetamine, but not with pentobarbital. When the presignal time was variable, increases in signal detection were not obtained with either stimulant. When a warning stimulus preceded the signal, the increases in accuracy were similar to those obtained without the warning stimulus. Hence, a procedure that increased vigilance demand (using a variable prestimulus period) eliminated the effects of drugs useful in treating ADHD, whereas a procedure that decreased vigilance demand (adding the warning light) had no appreciable effects on the response to stimulant drugs. Taken together, the present results suggest that the five-choice serial reaction-time has predictive validity for selecting drugs effective for treating ADHD, although effects can depend critically on the stimulus conditions used and the vigilance required by the procedure.
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.