Cited by 104Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudySmoking Behavior and CessationNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Chronic nicotine administration improves attention while nicotine withdrawal induces performance deficits in the 5-choice serial reaction time task in rats

Open access
Semenova, Svetlana, Stolerman, Ian P., Markou, Athina·2007·Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior

Abstract

Nicotine appears to enhance attention, while nicotine withdrawal leads to attentional deficits in humans that are ameliorated with nicotine administration. However, there has been much debate as to whether nicotine improves performance under baseline conditions, or only ameliorates attentional deficits. Thus, we studied the effects of acute and chronic nicotine administration and nicotine withdrawal on attentional performance in the 5-choice serial reaction time task (5-CSRTT) in Wistar and Sprague Dawley (SD) rats under baseline conditions. Wistar rats performed with higher accuracy compared to SD rats. Acute nicotine administration induced small increases in accuracy and correct responses, impulsivity and speed of responding, and decreases in omission errors. These effects were more pronounced in less accurate rats or after task modifications were implemented to disrupt the rats' performance. Chronic nicotine administration via minipumps consistently increased accuracy during days 4-6 of nicotine infusion after the effect of nicotine on impulsivity during days 1-3 dissipated. By contrast, nicotine withdrawal induced decreases in correct responses, and increases in omissions and latencies to respond, but had no effect on accuracy. These results provide evidence that chronic, but not acute, nicotine administration induced accuracy improvement under baseline conditions, while nicotine withdrawal produced some limited performance deficits.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pbb.2007.05.009

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Nicotine withdrawal produces impairments in both contextual learning and attention-based models.

    “Conversely, nicotine withdrawal produces impairments in both contextual learning and attention-based models (Semenova et al. 2007; Gould et al. 2012; Portugal et al. 2012; Poole et al. 2014; Yildirim et al. 2015).”

    From The long-term cognitive consequences of adolescent exposure to recreational drugs of abuse (2018) · cites this paper as Semenova et al. 2007

    The Abstract and Discussion report that nicotine withdrawal caused limited, short-lasting performance deficits in the rat 5-choice serial reaction time task, including some attentional deficits. The cited paper does not report an impairment in contextual learning, so it supports only the attention-based part of the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The 5-CSRTT is a visual attention task that can reliably detect cognitive aspects of nicotine withdrawal.

    “The five-choice serial reaction time task (5-CSRTT) is a visual attention task [205] that can reliably detect cognitive aspects of nicotine withdrawal [206, 207].”

    From Mechanistic insights into nicotine withdrawal (2011) · cites this paper as [207]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 54 · Cited by 104

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Mirsky AF, Rosvold HE. The use of psychoactive drugs as a neuropsychological tool in studies of attention in man. New York: Wiley; 1960. [Google Scholar]

Authors
Semenova, S., Stolerman, I. P., & Markou, A.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Markou, Athina
Venue
Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-08
Volume
87
Issue
3
Pages
360-368
ISSN
0091-3057 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2002531463
Cited by
104
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH 62527, R01MH062527)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
nicotine, nicotine withdrawal, attention, 5-choice serial reaction time task, impulsivity, response latency, omission errors, chronic nicotine administration, acute nicotine administration, strain differences, Wistar rats, Sprague-Dawley rats
MeSH terms
Animals, Attention, Male, Nicotine, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Species Specificity, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Rats, Wistar, Nicotinic Agonists, 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