Cited by 42Memory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory Processes and Influences

Reversible inactivation of the entorhinal cortex disrupts the establishment and expression of latent inhibition of cued fear conditioning in C57BL/6 mice

Lewis, Michael C., Gould, Thomas J.·2007·Hippocampus

Abstract

For latent inhibition, preexposure to a conditioned stimulus (CS) prior to training with an unconditioned stimulus (US) results in decreased conditioned responses (CRs) to the CS at the time of testing. The mechanism by which decreased CRs occurs, however, is unknown; CS preexposure may interfere with subsequent conditioning, or modulate the expression of CRs. Previous research has suggested that the entorhinal cortex (EC) is necessary for latent inhibition of a variety of tasks. However, no studies have specifically compared the role of the EC in acquisition vs. expression of latent inhibition. The present study used reversible inactivation of the EC to address this issue. The GABA agonist muscimol (0.5 μg/side) was directly infused into the EC of mice prior to CS preexposure, training, or testing. Our results indicate that muscimol inactivation of the EC before CS preexposure disrupts latent inhibition of cued fear conditioning. Importantly, this same dose of muscimol did not disrupt cued fear conditioning, nor did it affect latent inhibition when infused into the subiculum. Furthermore, inactivation of the EC at testing disrupted the expression of latent inhibition of cued fear conditioning; that is, CS preexposed mice that received entorhinal cortical muscimol infusion at testing showed CRs compared to saline‐infused CS preexposed mice. These findings suggest that repeated preexposure to the CS during latent inhibition may alter entorhinal cortical activity thereby allowing the EC to exert inhibitory control over the expression of CRs during testing of CS preexposed mice. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hipo.20284

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Direct infusions into the ventral hippocampus have very good anatomical precision, with spread of infusion using this procedure about 1 mm3 after 24-48 h.

    “Direct infusions, as opposed to i.c.v. or systemic infusions, have very good anatomical precision, as the spread of infusion using this procedure is B1 mm3 after 24–48 h (Davis et al, 2007; Lewis and Gould, 2007).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lewis, M. C., & Gould, T. J.
Affiliations
Temple University (US)
Corresponding author
Gould, Thomas J.
Venue
Hippocampus
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-03-19
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
462-470
ISSN
  • 1050-9631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-1063
OpenAlex
W2123774285
Cited by
42
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Hippocampus (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA017949, R01DA017949)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
entorhinal cortex, latent inhibition, cued fear conditioning, muscimol inactivation, subiculum, inhibitory control, hippocampal formation
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Conditioning, Classical, Cues, Fear, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Muscimol, Time Factors, Entorhinal Cortex, GABA Agonists, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review