Cited by 27Schizophrenia research and treatmentMemory and Neural MechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Lesions to the ventral, but not the dorsal, medial prefrontal cortex enhance latent inhibition

Open access
George, David N., Duffaud, Anaïs M., Pothuizen, Helen H. J., Haddon, Josephine E., Killcross, Simon·2010·European Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The acquisition of a conditioned response to a stimulus when it is paired with a reinforcer is retarded if the stimulus has previously been repeatedly pre‐exposed in the absence of the reinforcer. This effect, called latent inhibition, has previously been found to be insensitive to lesions of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) in rats. Using an on‐baseline conditioned emotional response procedure, which is especially sensitive to small variations in the absolute magnitude of latent inhibition, we found increased latent inhibition following excitotoxic lesions of the mPFC (Experiment 1) or the ventral mPFC alone (Experiment 2) as compared with sham‐operated control rats. Lesions restricted to the dorsal mPFC, however, were without effect (Experiment 2). These results are consistent with those of experiments employing another type of interference procedure, extinction. Together, these findings suggest that when different contingencies between a stimulus and a reinforcer are established in separate learning phases, lesions to the ventral mPFC result in increased interference between first‐learned and second‐learned contingencies. As a consequence, retrieval of the second‐learned contingency is impaired, and performance is dominated by the first‐learned contingency. These findings are discussed in light of the use of latent inhibition to model cognitive deficits in schizophrenia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07178.x

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
George, D. N., Duffaud, A. M., Pothuizen, H. H. J., Haddon, J. E., & Killcross, S.
Affiliations
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (FR)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
George, David N.
Venue
European Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-04
Volume
31
Issue
8
Pages
1474-1482
ISSN
  • 0953-816X (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-9568
OpenAlex
W2049540001
Cited by
27
References
6
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • European Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Royal Society
  • Cardiff University
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/E011969/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
latent inhibition, medial prefrontal cortex, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, excitotoxic lesions, conditioned emotional response, extinction
MeSH terms
Animals, Conditioning, Classical, Emotions, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Photomicrography, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reinforcement Schedule, Prefrontal Cortex, 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