Cited by 147Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorCholinesterase and Neurodegenerative DiseasesNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study

Sustained attention performance in rats with intracortical infusions of 192 IgG-saporin-induced cortical cholinergic deafferentation: Effects of Physostigmine and FG 7142.

McGaughy, Jill, Sarter, Martin·1998·Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Rats with extensive lesions of cortical cholinergic afferents as a result of infusions of 192 IgG-saporin into the basal forebrain show persistent impairments in sustained attention performance (J. McGaughy, T. Kaiser, & M. Sarter, 1996). However, the administration of neither the cholinesterase inhibitor physostigmine nor the benzodiazepine receptor partial inverse agonist FG 7142 attenuated the lesion-induced impairments in performance. The present study demonstrated that less extensive cortical cholinergic deafferentation, produced by intracortical infusions of a relatively small concentration of 192 IgG-saporin, resulted in a significant impairment in sustained attention. However, the administration of neither physostigmine (0.01-0.1 mg/kg) nor FG 7142 (0.1-1.0 mg/kg) benefited the performance of the animals. Because neither compound selectively augments performance-associated increases in acetylcholine release from residual neurons, beneficial effects on cortical cholinergic deafferentation-based impairments in attention may remain limited.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0735-7044.112.6.1519

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?

  • Persistent spiking may contribute to the generation of responses in the sustained attention task.

    “Persistent spiking may contribute to the generation of responses in the sustained attention task (Sarter et al, 2005; McGaughy and Sarter, 1998).”

    From Modes and models of forebrain cholinergic neuromodulation of cognition (2011) · cites this paper as McGaughy and Sarter, 1998

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McGaughy, J., & Sarter, M.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Venue
Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
1998
Volume
112
Issue
6
Pages
1519-1525
ISSN
  • 0735-7044 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0084
OpenAlex
W2046080212
Cited by
147
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
FWCI
2.64
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 › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Keywords
sustained attention, physostigmine, FG 7142, cholinesterase inhibitors, acetylcholine release, basal forebrain lesions, attention deficits, rats
MeSH terms
Saporins, Afferent Pathways, Animals, Immunotoxins, Appetitive Behavior, Attention, Brain Mapping, Carbolines, Cerebral Cortex, Cholinergic Fibers, Discrimination Learning, Immunoglobulin G, Male, N-Glycosyl Hydrolases, Physostigmine, Plant Proteins, Rats, Inbred Strains, Prosencephalon, GABA Antagonists, 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