Cited by 627Motor Control and AdaptationParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

A rotarod test for evaluation of motor skill learning

Shiotsuki, Hiromi, Yoshimi, Kenji, Shimo, Yasushi, Funayama, Manabu, Takamatsu, Yukio, Ikeda, Kazutaka, Takahashi, Ryosuke, Kitazawa, Shigeru +1 more·2010·Journal of Neuroscience Methods

Abstract

The rotarod test is widely used to evaluate the motor coordination of rodents, and is especially sensitive in detecting cerebellar dysfunction. However, mice with striatal dopamine depletion show only mild or no motor deficit on the typical accelerating rotarod. This suggests that dopamine-depleted mice are useful as animal models for non-motor symptoms, because the influence of motor deficit is minimum and easy to discriminate from cognitive aspects of the behavioral change. The typical accelerating rotarod test is designed to evaluate maximal motor performance and is not optimized to detect motor skill learning. In an attempt to make the test more selective to motor skill learning rather than maximal gait performance, we modified the rotarod test by using a slowly rotating large drum to obtain a steep learning curve. Furthermore, administration of nomifensine, a dopamine uptake inhibitor, improved the learning. On the other hand, apomorphine, an agonist of dopamine autoreceptor, a dopaminergic toxin, 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP) impaired the learning. These pharmacological profiles fit the involvement of the so-called phasic dopamine neurotransmission. Using our modified procedure, we found impaired learning of Parkin-deficit mice, which has not been detected in typical accelerating rotarod. The modified rotarod test would be useful for evaluation of dopamine involvement in the acquisition of motor skill learning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.03.026

Cites

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 42 · Cited by 627

Authors
Shiotsuki, H., Yoshimi, K., Shimo, Y., Funayama, M., Takamatsu, Y., Ikeda, K., Takahashi, R., Kitazawa, S., & Hattori, N.
Affiliations
  • Juntendo University (JP)
  • Tokyo Institute of Psychiatry (JP)
Corresponding author
Hattori, Nobutaka
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-06
Volume
189
Issue
2
Pages
180-185
ISSN
0165-0270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2021935429
Cited by
627
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
rotarod test, motor skill learning, dopamine, MPTP, apomorphine, nomifensine, striatal dopamine depletion, motor coordination, learning curve, non-motor symptoms
MeSH terms
Animals, Apomorphine, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Motor Skills, Nomifensine, Receptors, Dopamine, Rotation, Time Factors, Dopamine Agents, 1-Methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine, Mice, Knockout, Dopamine Agonists, Dopamine Uptake Inhibitors, Ubiquitin-Protein Ligases, Rotarod Performance Test, 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