Cited by 33Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchVisual perception and processing mechanismsGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases

Faster perceptual learning through excitotoxic neurodegeneration

Open access
Beste, Christian, Wascher, Edmund, Dinse, Hubert R., Saft, Carsten·2012·Current Biology

Abstract

Glutamatergic neural transmission is involved in both neural plasticity and neurodegeneration. This combination of roles could result in ambivalent effects in which excitotoxic neurodegeneration augments neural plasticity in parallel. Neural plasticity can be induced by exposure-based learning (EBL) that resembles timing properties of long-term potentiation (LTP) protocols (i.e., LTP-like learning). Even though it has not been demonstrated so far in animal models that perceptual effects of such stimulation protocols are mediated by typical LTP mechanisms, it has been shown that exposure-based learning exerts strong effects on cognitive brain functioning and is modulated by glutamatergic neural transmission. We reveal that exposure-based perceptual learning is more efficient in a human model of excitotoxic neurodegeneration than in healthy participants. Premanifest Huntington's disease gene mutation carriers showed faster increases in perceptual sensitivities than controls. This in turn changed attentional processing in extrastriate visual areas objectified using electroencephalogram data. The emergence of faster learning correlated positively with genetic disease load. Our results confirm an ambivalent action of increased glutamatergic transmission, implying that the process of excitotoxic neurodegeneration is associated with enhanced perceptual learning, which can be used to improve attentional and behavioral control via the alteration of perceptual sensitivities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2012.08.012

Cites

27 of 27 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beste, C., Wascher, E., Dinse, H. R., & Saft, C.
Affiliations
Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
Corresponding author
Beste, Christian
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-10
Volume
22
Issue
20
Pages
1914-1917
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1991873473
Cited by
33
References
27
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Genetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Keywords
perceptual learning, excitotoxic neurodegeneration, glutamatergic neurotransmission, long-term potentiation, neuroplasticity, premanifest Huntington's disease, attention, visual perception, extrastriate visual areas
MeSH terms
Attention, Brain, Electroencephalography, Humans, Huntington Disease, Learning, Synaptic Transmission, Neuronal Plasticity, Long-Term Potentiation

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