ArticleBrain and neuroscience advances
Comparison of conventional and rapid-acting antidepressants in a rodent probabilistic reversal learning task.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preclinical models for evaluating psychedelics in the treatment of major depressive disorder.British journal of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Review
- Design and validation of novel brain-penetrant HCN channel inhibitors to ameliorate social stress-induced susceptible phenotype.Molecular psychiatry · 2025Article
- Cross-species translational paradigms for assessing positive valence system as defined by the RDoC matrix.Journal of neurochemistry · 2025Review
- Characterisation of behaviours relevant to apathy syndrome in the aged male rat.Behavioural brain research · 2024Article
- Rodent tests of depression and anxiety: Construct validity and translational relevance.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2024Review
- The dynamic strategy shifting task: Optimisation of an operant task for assessing cognitive flexibility in rats.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Neuropsychological Effects of Antidepressants: Translational Studies.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2024Review
- A mild impairment in reversal learning in a bowl-digging substrate deterministic task but not other cognitive tests in the Dlg2+/- rat model of genetic risk for psychiatric disorder.Genes, brain, and behavior · 2023Article
- Parallel learning and cognitive flexibility impairments betweenFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
- Using touchscreen-delivered cognitive assessments to address the principles of the 3Rs in behavioral sciences.Lab animal · 2021Review
- Investigation of reward learning and feedback sensitivity in non-clinical participants with a history of early life stress.PloS one · 2021Article
- Applying Reinforcement Learning to Rodent Stress Research.Chronic stress (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.