Cited by 30Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsCognitive Functions and Memory

Ischemic lesions localized to the medial prefrontal cortex produce selective deficits in measures of executive function in rats

Déziel, Robert A., Ryan, Catherine L., Tasker, R. Andrew·2015·Behavioural Brain Research

Abstract

Ischemic stroke is one of the leading causes of neurological disability worldwide, and it has been estimated that about one quarter of stroke survivors experience some measurable long-term cognitive impairments. Many higher order cognitive deficits occur because of damage to the prefrontal cortex (PFC), which is one of the main areas of the brain responsible for executive functioning in mammals. Currently, there are few animal models that examine the effects of stroke on executive function. In this study we used bilateral micro-injections (1μl) of the vasoconstricting peptide endothelin-1 (ET-1) into the medial PFC in male Sprague-Dawley rats (or vehicle control, N=17-18 per group) in order to model ischemic lesions in the medial PFC. The effects of these lesions on executive function were assessed using tests of set-shifting and temporal object recognition. ET-1 injections in the medial PFC resulted in replicable and specific lesions within the PFC with an average infarct volume of 16.63±2.71mm(3). The ischemic lesions resulted in specific contextual set-shifting deficits within the maze, including an increased number of trials to criterion and a significant difference in learning curves. However, no deficits in temporal order memory processing were noted between sham and stroke animals. We conclude that ischemic lesions localized to the mPFC result in selective but not generalized deficits in executive function in rats.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bbr.2015.07.003

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Déziel, R. A., Ryan, C. L., & Tasker, R. A.
Affiliations
University of Prince Edward Island (CA)
Corresponding author
Tasker, R. Andrew
Venue
Behavioural Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-10
Volume
293
Pages
54-61
ISSN
0166-4328 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W780794378
Cited by
30
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioural Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Atlantic Innovation Fund (193639)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
ischemic stroke, medial prefrontal cortex, executive function, endothelin-1, vasoconstriction, set-shifting, temporal order memory, cognitive impairment, animal models of stroke, infarct size
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Animals, Attention, Brain Ischemia, Cognition Disorders, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Set, Psychology, Time Factors, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Prefrontal Cortex, Maze Learning, Endothelin-1, Brain Infarction, Recognition, Psychology, Rats, Executive Function

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