Cited by 15Effects of Radiation ExposureCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesSpaceflight effects on biology

Effects of x-ray radiation on complex visual discrimination learning and social recognition memory in rats

Open access
Davis, Catherine M., Roma, Peter G., Armour, Elwood, Gooden, Virginia L., Brady, Joseph V., Weed, Michael R., Hienz, Robert D.·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

The present report describes an animal model for examining the effects of radiation on a range of neurocognitive functions in rodents that are similar to a number of basic human cognitive functions. Fourteen male Long-Evans rats were trained to perform an automated intra-dimensional set shifting task that consisted of their learning a basic discrimination between two stimulus shapes followed by more complex discrimination stages (e.g., a discrimination reversal, a compound discrimination, a compound reversal, a new shape discrimination, and an intra-dimensional stimulus discrimination reversal). One group of rats was exposed to head-only X-ray radiation (2.3 Gy at a dose rate of 1.9 Gy/min), while a second group received a sham-radiation exposure using the same anesthesia protocol. The irradiated group responded less, had elevated numbers of omitted trials, increased errors, and greater response latencies compared to the sham-irradiated control group. Additionally, social odor recognition memory was tested after radiation exposure by assessing the degree to which rats explored wooden beads impregnated with either their own odors or with the odors of novel, unfamiliar rats; however, no significant effects of radiation on social odor recognition memory were observed. These data suggest that rodent tasks assessing higher-level human cognitive domains are useful in examining the effects of radiation on the CNS, and may be applicable in approximating CNS risks from radiation exposure in clinical populations receiving whole brain irradiation.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0104393

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The threshold doses required to generate specific measurable physiological effects can be very different between species and even between strains within species.

    “the threshold doses required to generate specific measurable physiological effects can be very different between species and even between strains within species [83].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [26]Ator NA (1991) Subjects and instrumentation. In: Iversen H, Lattal KA, editors. Techniques in the behavioral and neural sciences: Experimental analysis of behavior. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 1–62.
  2. [32]Davis CM, Roma PG, Guida PM, Hienz RD (2012) Comparing the effects of 56Fe and proton radiation on psychomotor vigilance. NASA Human Research Performance Investigators’ Workshop. Houston, TX.
  3. [33]Davis CM, Roma PG, Guida PM, Hienz RD (2013) Comparing the effects of 28Si, 56Fe, and proton radiation on psychomotor vigilance. NASA Human Research Performance Investigators’ Workshop, 2013. Houston, TX.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davis, C. M., Roma, P. G., Armour, E., Gooden, V. L., Brady, J. V., Weed, M. R., & Hienz, R. D.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Davis, Catherine M.
  • Roma, Peter G.
  • Armour, Elwood
  • Gooden, Virginia L.
  • Brady, Joseph V.
  • Weed, Michael R.
  • Hienz, Robert D.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-08-06
Volume
9
Issue
8
Pages
e104393
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1988620942
Cited by
15
References
37
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NBPF02802, PF02602, NBPF01604, NCC958)
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • National Space Biomedical Research Institute (PF02602, NBPF02802, NCC 9‐58)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Effects of Radiation Exposure
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Spaceflight effects on biology
Keywords
X-rays, cognitive impairment, compound discrimination, whole brain radiotherapy
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Humans, Learning, Male, Memory, Social Behavior, Visual Perception, X-Rays, 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