A rotarod test for evaluation of motor skill learning
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The rotarod task assesses motor performance and motor learning.
“A computer-controlled rotarod system (TSE, Technical and Scientific Equipment) was used to assess motor performance and motor learning in the rotarod task [45].”
From Characterization of a Mouse Model of Alzheimer’s Disease Expressing Aβ4-42 and Human Mutant Tau (2021) · cites this paper as [45]
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