Cited by 87Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudySmoking Behavior and CessationNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Deficits in a sustained attention task following nicotine withdrawal in rats

Open access
Shoaib, Mohammed, Bizarro, Lisiane·2005·Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Objective Behavioural consequences of spontaneous and antagonist-precipitated withdrawal from nicotine upon performance of rats were compared alongside non-nicotinic antagonists in the 5-choice serial reaction time task (5-CSRTT).Methods Male hooded Lister rats were trained to detect and respond to brief flashes of light presented every 15 s in one of five holes until a stable level of performance was achieved.Results Surgical removal of osmotic minipumps from rats having received nicotine (3.16 mg/kg per day base SC) chronically for 7 days produced marked deficits in performance. Compared to saline-treated controls, deficits were apparent 10 h and 16 h following nicotine abstinence; the percentage of omission errors increased concomitantly with modest decreases in response accuracy. Tests conducted 34 h and 106 h post-withdrawal indicated a progressive and complete recovery in attention performance, respectively. In another experiment, following the exposure to the same nicotine regime, administration of the competitive nicotine receptor antagonist dihydro-beta-erythroidine precipitated immediate deficits in performance that were greater than those observed in saline-treated subjects. Methyllycaconitine, an alpha(7) nicotinic receptor antagonist failed to precipitate attention deficits in nicotine-treated rats. Tests with SCH23390 and raclopride produced impairments that were similar in profile to nicotine withdrawal contrasting with non-specific effects of dizocilpine.Conclusions These results provide evidence of a cognitive impairment resulting from nicotine deprivation in rodents. Specifically, blockade of D(1) receptors by SCH23390 produced decrements in performance that were qualitatively similar but greater in magnitude to the alterations observed following nicotine withdrawal. Overall, assessing nicotine withdrawal in the 5-CSRTT presents an animal model that exhibits robust construct and face validity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00213-004-2004-6

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Spontaneous withdrawal from nicotine produces significant deficits in sustained attention in male rats.

    “Significant deficits in sustained attention were seen after spontaneous withdrawal from nicotine in male rats [206]”

    From Mechanistic insights into nicotine withdrawal (2011) · cites this paper as [206]

  • DHβE-precipitated withdrawal produces significant deficits in sustained attention in nicotine-treated rats.

    “as well as during withdrawal precipitated with DHβE [206].”

    From Mechanistic insights into nicotine withdrawal (2011) · cites this paper as [206]

  • The 5-CSRTT is a visual attention task that can reliably detect cognitive aspects of nicotine withdrawal.

    “The five-choice serial reaction time task (5-CSRTT) is a visual attention task [205] that can reliably detect cognitive aspects of nicotine withdrawal [206, 207].”

    From Mechanistic insights into nicotine withdrawal (2011) · cites this paper as [206]

  • MLA does not precipitate attention deficits in nicotine-treated rats.

    “The α7 nAChR antagonist MLA failed to precipitate attention deficits in nicotine-treated rats [206]”

    From Mechanistic insights into nicotine withdrawal (2011) · cites this paper as [206]

  • α4β2-containing nAChRs, but not α7-containing nAChRs, are important for 5-CSRTT performance.

    “suggesting that α4β2-containing, but not α7-containing nAChRs are important for 5-CSRTT.”

    From Mechanistic insights into nicotine withdrawal (2011) · cites this paper as [206]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shoaib, M., & Bizarro, L.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
Corresponding author
Shoaib, Mohammed
Venue
Psychopharmacology
Published
2004-08-27
Volume
178
Issue
2-3
Pages
211-222
ISSN
  • 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2072
OpenAlex
W2070055547
Cited by
87
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
nicotine withdrawal, sustained attention, 5-choice serial reaction time task, dihydro-beta-erythroidine, methyllycaconitine, alpha7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, dopamine D1 receptor, SCH 23390, raclopride, MK-801, cognitive impairment, nicotine dependence
MeSH terms
Animals, Attention, Choice Behavior, Male, Nicotine, Serial Learning, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Receptors, Dopamine D1, Rats

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