2001
DOI: 10.1016/s0166-4328(01)00181-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Selective deficits in attentional performance on the 5-choice serial reaction time task following pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus lesions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

7
62
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 101 publications
(69 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
7
62
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Lesions of PPTg specifically impair global attention, and this effect could account for results previously interpreted as reflecting difficulties with associative learning (Inglis et al, 2001). Recent data show that PPTg cells respond less to poorly attended cues (Ivlieva and Timofeeva, 2003), suggesting that an attentional or arousal gate acts at this level.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Lesions of PPTg specifically impair global attention, and this effect could account for results previously interpreted as reflecting difficulties with associative learning (Inglis et al, 2001). Recent data show that PPTg cells respond less to poorly attended cues (Ivlieva and Timofeeva, 2003), suggesting that an attentional or arousal gate acts at this level.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…At the behavioral level, lesions of PPTg impair attention (Inglis et al, 2001) and the learning of associations between a conditioned stimulus and a primary reward (Inglis et al, 1994(Inglis et al, , 2000. Furthermore, some evidence from recordings in cats suggest that PPTg neuronal responses to auditory stimuli may be context dependent (Dormont et al, 1998), indicating a degree of plasticity similar to that seen in DA cell responses to predicted rewards (Schultz, 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reasons underlying these different effects of nicotine on omissions in rodents have yet to be clearly defined. One possible explanation is that in rats, the lack of effect of nicotine on omissions may be due to a floor effect as baseline omissions are already o10%, whereas in mice they are approximately 20% (Inglis et al, 2001;Spratt et al, 2001). This difference in omission levels cannot be attributed simply to the fact that mice were tested in apparatus commonly used for rats, as when the apparatus was scaled down, omission levels were still about 20% (Humby et al, 1999).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In animal models, PPN lesions have been reported to impair attention, executive function, working memory and learning Inglis et al, 2000Inglis et al, , 2001Inglis and Winn 1995;Kozak et al, 2005;Garcia-Rill, 1991). High frequency PPN DBS in a non-human primate model had similar effects.…”
mentioning
confidence: 88%