MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098223665 · doi:10.1002/syn.20106

Nicotine stimulates dendritic arborization in motor cortex and improves concurrent motor skill but impairs subsequent motor learning

2005· article· en· W2098223665 on OpenAlexafffund
Claudia L. R. Gonzalez, Omar A. Gharbawie, Ian Q. Whishaw, Bryan Kolb

Bibliographic record

VenueSynapse · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersCanadian Stroke Network
KeywordsForelimbNicotineMotor learningMotor cortexNeurosciencePsychologyAnesthesiaMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of the premature commitment of neurons to exuberant growth by nicotine on concurrent and subsequent learning is unknown and was the focus of the present study. Animals were trained on a tray reaching for food task (where lots of pieces of chicken feed were available) for 3 weeks before they received two daily injections of nicotine (0.3 mg/kg) or 0.9% saline for 12 days. Measures of tray-reaching performance were obtained before the administration of nicotine and every other week for a total of 7 weeks. Starting on week 8, animals were given a novel motor skill problem that required them to learn to use a forepaw to reach through a slot in a cage for single food pellets located on an external shelf. Pyramidal cells in the forelimb area of both hemispheres were then examined for dendritic length and branching using a Golgi-Cox procedure. Animals treated with saline displayed excellent performance in both reaching tasks and an increase in neuronal branching in Layer V pyramidal cells in the motor cortex contralateral to the reaching paw. In contrast, animals treated with nicotine showed bilateral increases in neuronal branching. Behavioral results showed that nicotine improved forelimb use in the concurrently administered tray-reaching task, but severely degraded quantitative and qualitative scores of skilled forelimb use in the subsequently administered single-pellet reaching task. The results suggest that plasticity coincidence with skilled training is essential to skilled motor learning, but this expenditure can impair subsequent learning.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSynapseSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207