ArticleBehavioral neuroscience2019
Inactivation of the interpositus nucleus during unpaired extinction does not prevent extinction of conditioned eyeblink responses or conditioning-specific reflex modification.
Article in Behavioral neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
For almost 75 years, classical eyeblink conditioning has been an invaluable tool for assessing associative learning processes across many species, thanks to its high translatability and well-defined neural circuitry. Our laboratory has adapted the paradigm to extensively detail associative changes in the rabbit reflexive eyeblink response (unconditioned response, UR), characterized by postconditioning increases in the frequency, size, and latency of the UR when the periorbital shock unconditioned stimulus (US) is presented alone, termed conditioning-specific reflex modification (CRM). Because the shape and timing of CRM closely resembles the conditioned eyeblink response (CR) to the tone conditioned stimulus (CS), we previously tested whether CRs and CRM share a common neural substrate, the interpositus nucleus of the cerebellum (IP), and found that IP inactivation during conditioning blocked the development of both CRs and the timing aspect of CRM. The goal of the current study was to examine whether extinction of CRs and CRM timing, accomplished simultaneously with unpaired CS/US extinction, also involves the IP. Results showed that muscimol inactivation of the IP during extinction blocked CR expression but not extinction of CRs or CRM timing, contrasting with the literature showing IP inactivation prevents CR extinction during CS-alone presentations. The continued presence of the US throughout the unpaired extinction procedure may have been sufficient to overcome IP blockade, promoting plasticity in the cerebellar cortex and/or extracerebellar components of the eyeblink conditioning pathway that can modulate extinction of CRs and CRM timing. Results therefore add support to the distributed plasticity view of cerebellar learning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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.