Cited by 83Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Selective removal of cholinergic neurons in the basal forebrain alters cued target detection

Chiba, Andrea A., Bushnell, Philip J., Oshiro, Wendy M., Gallagher, Michela·1999·NeuroReport

Abstract

A spatial orienting task was used to assess attention in rats with selective cholinergic lesions of the basal forebrain. The task required each rat to press a lever in response to a visual target that could occur in one of two locations. A target could be preceded by a cue that either accurately predicted the location of the target (valid) or appeared in the location opposite the target (invalid). Target detection was facilitated by valid cues and degraded by invalid cues in control rats. Performance of rats with lesions was equivalent to that of control rats for valid cues, but reflected an increased cost of invalid cueing. These data support a modulatory role for the basal forebrain cholinergic system in visuospatial attention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00001756-199909290-00044

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • The conceptualization of cholinergic transients in terms of mediating attentional orienting is consistent with the finding that cholinergic lesions or systemic or local cortical blockade of mAChRs impair attentional orienting.

    “The conceptualization of cholinergic transients in terms of mediating attentional orienting is consistent with the finding that cholinergic lesions or systemic or local cortical blockade of mAChRs impair attentional orienting (Davidson & Marrocco, 2000; Davidson et al, 1999; Chiba et al, 1999; Phillips et al, 2000).”

    From Modes and models of forebrain cholinergic neuromodulation of cognition (2011) · cites this paper as Chiba et al, 1999

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chiba, A. A., Bushnell, P. J., Oshiro, W. M., & Gallagher, M.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
NeuroReport
Published
1999-09
Volume
10
Issue
14
Pages
3119-3123
ISSN
0959-4965 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1973235837
Cited by
83
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroreport (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1k05mh001149-01a1)
  • National Institute on Aging (P01AG009973, P0-AG09973)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (F32-MH1099, KO5-MH01149)
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 › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
cholinergic neurons, basal forebrain, cholinergic lesions, visuospatial attention, spatial orienting, cue validity, acetylcholine, attentional modulation
MeSH terms
Animals, Attention, Choline O-Acetyltransferase, Conditioning, Operant, Cues, Discrimination Learning, Immunohistochemistry, Male, Neurons, Orientation, Parasympathetic Nervous System, Space Perception, Task Performance and Analysis, Prosencephalon, Rats, Long-Evans, 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