Cited by 435Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorCholinesterase and Neurodegenerative DiseasesSleep and Wakefulness Research

Behavioral vigilance following infusions of 192 IgG-saporin into the basal forebrain: selectivity of the behavioral impairment and relation to cortical AChE-positive fiber density

McGaughy, Jill, Kaiser, Tiffany, Sarter, Martin·1996·Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Rats were trained in a previously validated behavioral vigilance task that required them to detect visual signals of variable length and to discriminate signal from nonsignal events. Baseline performance was characterized by a signal length-dependent ability to score hits, a decline in hits over time, and a correct rejection rate of approximately 70%. After the rats reached criterion performance in this task, the immunotoxin 192 IgG-saporin or its vehicle was infused into the area of the nucleus basalis/substantia innominata of the basal forebrain. Postoperative performance in lesioned rats was characterized by a decrease in their ability to detect signals while their ability to correctly reject nonsignals remained unaffected. The effect of the lesion did not recover in the course of over 180 sessions of postlesion testing. The overall performance of the rats correlated with acetylcholinesterase (AChE)-positive fiber density in all cortical areas measured except the cingulate and pyriform cortex. These findings help to elucidate the nature of the attentional impairments resulting from the loss of cortical cholinergic inputs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0735-7044.110.2.247

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • In rodents, lesions of cholinergic inputs to the cortex impair tests of sustained attention, particularly across sensory modalities.

    “In rodents, lesions of cholinergic inputs to the cortex impair tests of sustained attention, particularly across sensory modalities (McGaughy et al., 2002; McGaughy et al., 1996; Turchi and Sarter, 1997).”
  • Cortical cholinergic deafferentation did not affect the animals' response accuracy in blank trials.

    “At the same time, this deafferentation did not affect the animals’ response accuracy in blank trials (i.e., the correct reporting of the absence of a cue).”

    From Modes and models of forebrain cholinergic neuromodulation of cognition (2011) · cites this paper as McGaughy et al, 1996

  • Cortical cholinergic deafferentation reduced the detection rate for all cues to about 30%, with no recovery despite several months of daily post-surgery practice.

    “While intact animals detected over 70–80% of the longest (500 ms) cues, cortical cholinergic deafferentation reduced the detection rate for all cues to about 30%, with no recovery despite several months of daily post-surgery practice (McGaughy et al, 1996).”

    From Modes and models of forebrain cholinergic neuromodulation of cognition (2011) · cites this paper as McGaughy et al, 1996

  • Removal of cortical cholinergic inputs selectively and persistently impaired the animals' detection rate (or number of hits), while response accuracy in blank trials remained completely spared.

    “Removal of cortical cholinergic inputs selectively and persistently impaired the animals’ detection rate (or number of hits). In contrast, response accuracy in blank trials remained completely spared.”

    From Modes and models of forebrain cholinergic neuromodulation of cognition (2011) · cites this paper as McGaughy et al, 1996

  • The residual hit rate following cortical cholinergic deafferentation may have been due to detections that occurred without the facilitating benefits of attentional orienting.

    “As orienting is not necessary for detection, the residual hit rate following cortical cholinergic deafferentation (McGaughy et al, 1996) may have been due to detections that occurred without the facilitating benefits of attentional orienting.”

    From Modes and models of forebrain cholinergic neuromodulation of cognition (2011) · cites this paper as McGaughy et al, 1996

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McGaughy, J., Kaiser, T., & Sarter, M.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Venue
Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
1996-04
Volume
110
Issue
2
Pages
247-265
ISSN
  • 0735-7044 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0084
OpenAlex
W2075076974
Cited by
435
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 28 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 16
FWCI
6.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ag010173-10)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG10 173)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH01072, K02MH001072)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS32938, R01NS032938)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cholinesterase and Neurodegenerative Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
Keywords
192 IgG-saporin, nucleus basalis of Meynert, substantia innominata, basal forebrain, attentional impairment, signal detection, visual discrimination, lesion recovery, rats
MeSH terms
Saporins, Acetylcholinesterase, Animals, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Immunotoxins, Attention, Brain Mapping, Carbolines, Cerebral Cortex, Cholinergic Fibers, Conditioning, Operant, Discrimination Learning, Male, N-Glycosyl Hydrolases, Rats, Inbred F344, Mental Recall, Substantia Innominata, Visual Perception, Prosencephalon, Cholinergic Agents, Rats, Ribosome Inactivating Proteins, Type 1

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