Cited by 49Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Lesions of the dorsomedial striatum impair formation of attentional set in rats

Lindgren, Hanna S., Wickens, Robin, Tait, David S., Brown, Verity J., Dunnett, Stephen B.·2013·Neuropharmacology

Abstract

Behavioural flexibility refers to the ability to rapidly adapt to novel situations and it has been suggested that the frontal lobe and basal ganglia are implicated in various components of adjusting to changes in environmental contingencies. Behavioural flexibility can be assessed using attentional set-shifting tasks, in which performance is impaired after damage to the prefrontal cortex. The present study explores the downstream contribution of the prefrontal projection zone in the dorsomedial striatum (DMS) to attentional set shifting. Rats were tested in two set-shifting tasks following quinolinic acid injections bilaterally into the DMS. When tested in a rodent version of the set-shifting task, rats with a DMS lesion displayed a greater number of errors during the reversal stages of the task than sham lesion controls but the nature of the errors did not differ between the two groups. Interestingly, when the rats were tested in a modified version of the set-shifting task, directly designed for measuring the formation of an attentional set, sham lesion controls displayed a pronounced shift-cost, evident of successful set-formation. In contrast, rats with DMS lesions failed to form an attentional set, showing no performance cost when a shift of attention was required. These results support previous reports of the importance of the DMS in behavioural flexibility but also suggest that this region is vital for the formation of set, possibly by extrapolating different perception…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.03.034

Cites

2 of 2 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
Lindgren, H. S., Wickens, R., Tait, D. S., Brown, V. J., & Dunnett, S. B.
Affiliations
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
Corresponding author
Lindgren, Hanna S.
Venue
Neuropharmacology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-08
Volume
71
Pages
148-153
ISSN
0028-3908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077529464
Cited by
49
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Vetenskapsrådet
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
dorsomedial striatum, set-shifting, behavioral flexibility, quinolinic acid lesion, reversal learning, basal ganglia, attentional control
MeSH terms
Animals, Attention, Behavior, Animal, Corpus Striatum, Discrimination Learning, Disease Models, Animal, Female, Learning, Learning Disabilities, Neurons, Rats, Inbred Strains, Reward, Quinolinic Acid, 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