4.5 Article

The Effects of Methylphenidate on Goal-directed Behavior in a Rat Model of ADHD

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00326

关键词

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; spontaneously hypertensive rats; Wistar-Kyoto rats; goal-directed behavior; methylphenidate

资金

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse [R15DA029544]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although attentional and motor alterations in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have been well characterized, less is known about how this disorder impacts goal-directed behavior. To investigate whether there is a misbalance between goaldirected and habitual behaviors in an animal model of ADHD, we tested adult [P75 P105] Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats (SHR; ADHD rat model) and Wistar Kyoto rats VKY), the normotensive control strain, on an instrumental conditioning paradigm with two phases: a free-operant training phase in which rats separately acquired two distinct action outcome contingencies, and a choice test conducted in extinction prior to which one of the food outcomes was devalued through specific satiety. To assess the effects of Methylphenidate (MPH), a commonly used ADHD medication, on goaldirected behavior, we injected rats with either MPH or saline prior to the choice test. Both rat strains acquired an instrumental response, with SHR responding at greater rates over the course of training. During the choice test WKY demonstrated goal-directed behavior, responding more frequently on the lever that delivered, during training, the still-valued outcome. In contrast, SHR showed no goal-directed behavior, responding equally on both levers. However, MPH administration prior to the choice test restored goal directed behavior in SHR, and disrupted this behavior in WKY rats. This study provides the first experimental evidence for selective impairment in goal-directed behavior in rat models of ADHD, and how MPH acts differently on SHR and WKY animals to restore or impair this behavior, respectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据