ArticlePharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior2020
Measuring attention in rats with a visual signal detection task: Signal intensity vs. signal duration.
Article in Pharmacology, biochemistry, and behavior, 2020. 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, 4 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Measurement of attentional performance in animal behavioral research allows us to investigate neural mechanisms underlying attentional processes and translate results to better understand human attentional function, dysfunction and drug treatments to reverse dysfunction. One useful method to measure attention in experimental animal studies is to use an operant visual signal detection paradigm, consisting of two levers and the rapid flashing of a cue lamp to signal a reward. In this study, we tested the relative sensitivity of this task when using different variants of the stimulus signal, varying brightness or duration of the light cue. To investigate roles of different neural systems underlying attentional processes, we assessed the sensitivity of attentional performance with these two different cue variations with blockade of muscarinic acetylcholine and NMDA glutamate receptors with scopolamine and MK-801 (dizocilpine). Operant signal detection was tested using a signal light that varied in intensity (0.027, 0.269, 1.22 lx) of the signal light or in a paradigm which varied the duration (0.5 s, 1 s, 2 s) of the signal light. Both methods of assessing attention showed construct validity for producing gradients of accuracy for signal detection; the dimmest cue led to less accurate responding compared to the brighter cues, and the shortest duration led to less accuracy compared to the longer durations. However, the tests differed in their sensitivity to pharmacological disruption. With the duration test, the high dose of MK-801 along with co-exposure of scopolamine and MK-801 caused a significant reduction of hit and rejection accuracy. Conversely, the intensity variation test did not show significant differences as a function of drug exposures. These data suggest that changes in signal duration, rather than signal intensity, during operant signal detection may have higher sensitivity to detecting drug effects and be a more useful technique for examining pharmacological interventions on attentional behavior and performance.
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.