Cited by 228Memory and Neural MechanismsStress Responses and CortisolMemory Processes and Influences

Chronic stress modulates the use of spatial and stimulus-response learning strategies in mice and man

Schwabe, Lars, Dalm, Sergiu, Schächinger, Hartmut, Oitzl, Melly S.·2008·Neurobiology of Learning and Memory

Abstract

Acute stress modulates multiple memory systems in favor of caudate nucleus-dependent stimulus-response and at the expense of hippocampus-dependent spatial learning and memory. We examined in mice and humans whether chronic stress has similar consequences. Male C57BL/6J mice that had been repeatedly exposed to rats ("rat stress") used in a circular hole board task significantly more often a stimulus-response strategy (33%) than control mice (0%). While velocity was increased, differences in latency to exit hole, distance moved or number of holes visited were not observed. Increased velocity and performance during retention trials one day later indicates altered emotionality and motivation to explore in rat stressed mice. Forty healthy young men and women were split into "high chronic stress" and "low chronic stress" groups based on their answers in a chronic stress questionnaire ("Trier Inventory of Chronic Stress"-TICS) and trained in a 2D task. A test trial immediately after training revealed that participants of the "high chronic stress" group used the S-R strategy significantly more often (94%) than participants of the "low chronic stress" group (52%). Verbal self-reports confirmed the strategy derived from participants' choice in the test trial. Learning performance was unaffected by the chronic stress level. We conclude that one consequence of chronic stress is the shift to more rigid stimulus-response learning, that is accompanied by changes in motivational factors in mice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nlm.2008.07.015

Cites

47 of 47 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
Schwabe, L., Dalm, S., Schächinger, H., & Oitzl, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • Universität Trier (DE)
Corresponding author
Schwabe, Lars
Venue
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-10
Volume
90
Issue
3
Pages
495-503
ISSN
1074-7427 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2122712485
Cited by
228
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 14
FWCI
6.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neurobiology of Learning and Memory (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (GRK 1389/1)
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (DN 95-420)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
chronic stress, spatial learning, stimulus-response learning, learning strategies, hippocampal-dependent memory, caudate nucleus, motivation, emotionality
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Association Learning, Caudate Nucleus, Chronic Disease, Discrimination Learning, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Reaction Time, Reference Values, Retention, Psychology, Self-Assessment, Spatial Behavior, Stress, Psychological, Chi-Square Distribution, Mice, Rats, Young Adult

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