Alcohol‐induced memory impairment in trace fear conditioning: A hippocampus‐specific effect

Weitemier, Adam Z.; Ryabinin, Andrey E.

doi:10.1002/hipo.10063

Cited by 59 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 70 publications

(95 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…105 This memory impairment may reflect a disruption of encoding, storage, consolidation, and/or retrieval capability. 106,107 Other studies have shown that moderate doses of ethanol delivered after learning generally enhance or have little effect on memory examined the next day, 108,109 and caffeine at moderate doses has been shown to facilitate memory acquisition and retention in animals assessed on various learning tasks. [110][111][112][113] A few articles have focused on the interaction between caffeine and ethanol on the memory in rodents.…”

Section: Caffeine-ethanol Interactions: Effects On Learning and Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Caffeine on the Behavioral Effects of Ethanol Related to Abuse and Addiction: A Review of Animal Studies

López-Cruz

Salamone

Correa

2013

Journal of Caffeine Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of caffeine on the behavioral effects of ethanol, including ethanol consumption and abuse, has become a topic of great interest due to the rise in popularity of the so-called energy drinks. Energy drinks high in caffeine are frequently taken in combination with ethanol under the popular belief that caffeine can offset some of the intoxicating effects of ethanol. However, scientific research has not universally supported the idea that caffeine can reduce the effects of ethanol in humans or in rodents, and the mechanisms mediating the caffeine-ethanol interactions are not well understood. Caffeine and ethanol have a common biological substrate; both act on neurochemical processes related to the neuromodulator adenosine. Caffeine acts as a nonselective adenosine A 1 and A 2A receptor antagonist, while ethanol has been demonstrated to increase the basal adenosinergic tone via multiple mechanisms. Since adenosine transmission modulates multiple behavioral processes, the interaction of both drugs can regulate a wide range of effects related to alcohol consumption and the development of ethanol addiction. In the present review, we discuss the relatively small number of animal studies that have assessed the interactions between caffeine and ethanol, as well as the interactions between ethanol and subtype-selective adenosine receptor antagonists, to understand the basic findings and determine the possible mechanisms of action underlying the caffeine-ethanol interactions.Caffeine as a Modulator of Ethanol Abuse C affeine and ethanol are widely consumed recreational drugs.

show abstract

Section: Caffeine-ethanol Interactions: Effects On Learning and Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Caffeine on the Behavioral Effects of Ethanol Related to Abuse and Addiction: A Review of Animal Studies

López-Cruz

Salamone

Correa

2013

Journal of Caffeine Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies have used short trace intervals ranging from 1 to 2.5 sec (Crestani et al 2002;Holmes et al 2002;Kinney et al 2002;Wrenn et al 2002), but evidence suggests that intervals this short do not engage the hippocampus and may therefore be more similar to delay fear conditioning, in which there is no interval between CS and US presentation (Chowdhury et al 2005;Misane et al 2005;Wanisch et al 2005). Still others have used longer trace intervals ranging from 20 to 30 sec (Huerta et al 2000;Weitemier and Ryabinin 2003;Gould et al 2004;Yee et al 2004;Wiltgen et al 2005). We chose an 18-sec trace interval because studies that have examined the role of the hippocampus in trace fear conditioning at multiple interval lengths (1-60 sec) have reported that a 15-20 sec interval is most effective at engaging the hippocampus (Chowdhury et al 2005;Misane et al 2005;Wanisch et al 2005).…”

Section: Org Downloaded Frommentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic background differences and nonassociative effects in mouse trace fear conditioning

Smith¹,

Gallagher²,

Stanton³

2007

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fear conditioning, including variants such as delay and trace conditioning that depend on different neural systems, is widely used to behaviorally characterize genetically altered mice. We present data from three strains of mice, C57/BL6 (C57), 129/SvlmJ (129), and a hybrid strain of the two (F 1 hybrids), trained on various versions of a trace fear-conditioning protocol. The initial version was taken from the literature but included unpaired control groups to assess nonassociative effects on test performance. We observed high levels of nonassociative freezing in both contextual and cued test conditions. In particular, nonassociative freezing in unpaired control groups was equivalent to freezing shown by paired groups in the tests for trace conditioning. A number of pilot studies resulted in a new protocol that yielded strong context conditioning and low levels of nonassociative freezing in all mouse strains. During the trace-CS test in this protocol, freezing in unpaired controls remained low in all strains, and both the C57s and F 1 hybrids showed reliable associative trace fear conditioning. Trace conditioning, however, was not obtained in the 129 mice. Our findings indicate that caution is warranted in interpreting mouse fear-conditioning studies that lack control conditions to address nonassociative effects. They also reveal a final set of parameters that are important for minimizing such nonassociative effects and demonstrate strain differences across performance in mouse contextual and trace fear conditioning.

show abstract

“…Delay fear conditioning, measured by using fear-potentiated startle, is also expressed maximally at a time point that is coincident with ISI (Davis et al 1989). In contrast, by using heart-rate or freezing as a measure of conditioning, fear has been observed to persist, and even on occasion to peak, after CS offset in delay and in trace conditioning (Quinn et al 2002;McEchron et al 2003;Weitemier and Ryabinin 2003), even though the hippocampus appears to encode the CS-US interval (McEchron et al 2003). This difference between freezing and fear-potentiated startle could be at least in part attributable to differences in sensitivity of the two behavioral measures to contextual fear.…”

Section: Learning and Memory 209mentioning

confidence: 99%

Timing of Fear Expression in Trace and Delay Conditioning Measured by Fear-Potentiated Startle in Rats

Burman

Gewirtz

2004

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, the time course of the expression of fear in trace (hippocampus-dependent) versus delay (hippocampus-independent) conditioning was characterized with a high degree of temporal specificity using fear-potentiated startle. In experiment 1, groups of rats were given delay fear conditioning or trace fear conditioning with a 3-or 12-sec trace interval between conditioned stimulus (CS) offset and unconditioned stimulus (US) onset. During test, the delay group showed fear-potentiated startle in the presence of the CS but not after its offset, whereas the trace groups showed fear-potentiated startle both during the CS and after its offset. Experiment 2 compared the time course of fear expression after trace conditioning with the time course in two delay conditioning groups: one matched to the trace conditioning group with respect to CS duration, and the other with respect to ISI. In all groups, fear was expressed until the scheduled occurrence of the US and returned to baseline rapidly thereafter. Thus, in both trace and delay fear conditioning, ISI is a critical determinant of the time course of fear expression. These results are informative as to the possible role of neural structures, such as the hippocampus, in memory processes related to temporal information.Although in Pavlovian delay conditioning presentations of the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the unconditioned stimulus (US) overlap, in trace conditioning a temporal gap or "trace" interval is interposed between the CS and the US. Even though eyeblink (i.e., skeletal) and fear (i.e., emotional) conditioning rely upon different neural substrates, the hippocampus has been shown to be critically involved in trace conditioning in both preparations (Moyer Jr. et al. 1990;McEchron et al. 1998;Quinn et al. 2002). Thus, the hippocampus is unlikely to be involved simply in the expression of the motoric or emotional responses associated with trace conditioning. Rather, given that trace (hippocampally dependent) and delay (hippocampally independent) conditioning differ solely with respect to the relative timing of CS and US presentation, the hippocampus would appear to be critically involved in mnemonic processes related to encoding the temporal relationship between the CS and the US. To understand hippocampal function, it is important, therefore, to characterize how the timing of conditioned responses in delay and trace conditioning relates to the timing of occurrences of the CS and US in training (see Quinn et al. 2002). In the current studies, this issue was addressed by using the acoustic startle reflex to assess the time course of the expression of conditioned fear after trace and delay conditioning.Some evidence supporting the contention that the hippocampus is involved in the temporal aspects of memory for trace conditioning is derived from the finding that hippocampal lesions sometimes simply cause a diminution in the latency and amplitude of conditioned eyeblink responses, rather than an outright block of trace eyeblink conditioning (Port et al...

show abstract

Alcohol‐induced memory impairment in trace fear conditioning: A hippocampus‐specific effect

Cited by 59 publications

References 70 publications

The Impact of Caffeine on the Behavioral Effects of Ethanol Related to Abuse and Addiction: A Review of Animal Studies

The Impact of Caffeine on the Behavioral Effects of Ethanol Related to Abuse and Addiction: A Review of Animal Studies

Genetic background differences and nonassociative effects in mouse trace fear conditioning

Timing of Fear Expression in Trace and Delay Conditioning Measured by Fear-Potentiated Startle in Rats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About