2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0028-3908(03)00099-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Attentional effects of nicotinic agonists in rats

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

13
109
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 125 publications
(123 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
13
109
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The doses of nicotine that improved attention in mice in the present studies are consistent with those reported to improve attention in normal humans Heishman and Henningfield, 2000;Min et al, 2001). In contrast, studies in rats have generally required higher doses of nicotine and the inclusion of lesions or task challenges (Muir et al, 1995;Mirza and Stolerman, 1998;Stolerman et al, 2000;Hahn et al, 2002Hahn et al, , 2003aGrottick et al, 2003). In addition, whereas nicotine reduced omission levels in ostensibly normal mice in the current study, and previously in normal human subjects , in rats, the most consistent manifestation of an improvement in attention was an increase in accuracy (Mirza and Stolerman, 1998;Hahn et al, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The doses of nicotine that improved attention in mice in the present studies are consistent with those reported to improve attention in normal humans Heishman and Henningfield, 2000;Min et al, 2001). In contrast, studies in rats have generally required higher doses of nicotine and the inclusion of lesions or task challenges (Muir et al, 1995;Mirza and Stolerman, 1998;Stolerman et al, 2000;Hahn et al, 2002Hahn et al, , 2003aGrottick et al, 2003). In addition, whereas nicotine reduced omission levels in ostensibly normal mice in the current study, and previously in normal human subjects , in rats, the most consistent manifestation of an improvement in attention was an increase in accuracy (Mirza and Stolerman, 1998;Hahn et al, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…The 5-CSR task was developed to examine sustained attention in rodents (Carli et al, 1983) and is regarded as being analogous to the CPT (Jones and Higgins, 1995). This task has been used extensively with rats, with nicotine generally showing an improvement in attention, but only when lesions or specific task challenges have been introduced to impair performance (Mirza and Stolerman, 1998;Grottick and Higgins, 2000;Stolerman et al, 2000;Mirza and Bright, 2001;Hahn et al, 2002Hahn et al, , 2003aGrottick et al, 2003). A consistent demonstration of a nicotine-induced facilitation of attention in unimpaired rats, unlike observations in humans , has proven challenging (Mirza and Bright, 2001;Terry et al, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…AR-R 17779, an AstraZeneca product, is an acetylcholine analogue with full agonist properties at the α7 nicotinic cholinergic receptor. This compound does not enhance the inhibition of startle in DBA/2 mice [123,124,125] or improve accuracy and speed of response on a five-choice serial reaction time [126,127]. ABT-418, has some agonist properties at the α7 nicotinic cholinergic receptors, but is a less potent agonist than nicotine [128] and restores deficient auditory gating in DBA/2 mice as well as rats with fimbria-fornix lesions, but similar to nicotine, fails to produce continued improvement with a second dose [54].…”
Section: Dmxba As a Prototype Drugmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On this same task, nicotine did not improve accuracy, whereas the atypical nicotinic agonist lobeline did significantly improve accuracy [9]. Some investigators did not find ARR 17779 to effectively improve attention on the 5-choice task [10,11]. However, Young et al found that mice with α7 knockout had significant impairments on the 5-choice task [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%