Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32219179›Full record

ArticleBrain and neuroscience advances

Comparison of conventional and rapid-acting antidepressants in a rodent probabilistic reversal learning task.

Matthew P Wilkinson, John P Grogan, Jack R Mellor, Emma S J Robinson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain and neuroscience advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Neuropsychological Effects of Antidepressants: Translational Studies.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Parallel learning and cognitive flexibility impairments betweenFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew P WilkinsonSchool of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6327-2949
John P GroganNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jack R MellorSchool of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Emma S J RobinsonSchool of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
University of Bristol · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/N015762/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deficits in reward processing are a central feature of major depressive disorder with patients exhibiting decreased reward learning and altered feedback sensitivity in probabilistic reversal learning tasks. Methods to quantify probabilistic learning in both rodents and humans have been developed, providing translational paradigms for depression research. We have utilised a probabilistic reversal learning task to investigate potential differences between conventional and rapid-acting antidepressants on reward learning and feedback sensitivity. We trained 12 rats in a touchscreen probabilistic reversal learning task before investigating the effect of acute administration of citalopram, venlafaxine, reboxetine, ketamine or scopolamine. Data were also analysed using a Q-learning reinforcement learning model to understand the effects of antidepressant treatment on underlying reward processing parameters. Citalopram administration decreased trials taken to learn the first rule and increased win-stay probability. Reboxetine decreased win-stay behaviour while also decreasing the number of rule changes animals performed in a session. Venlafaxine had no effect. Ketamine and scopolamine both decreased win-stay probability, number of rule changes performed and motivation in the task. Insights from the reinforcement learning model suggested that reboxetine led animals to choose a less optimal strategy, while ketamine decreased the model-free learning rate. These results suggest that reward learning and feedback sensitivity are not differentially modulated by conventional and rapid-acting antidepressant treatment in the probabilistic reversal learning task.

Indexed as

Antidepressantscitalopramcognitive flexibilityfeedback sensitivityketaminemajor depressive disorderprobabilistic reversal learningQ-learning

Identifiers

PMID32219179
PMCPMC7085917
OpenAlexW3006833795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.