Differential effects of dopamine and AMPA receptor antagonists on the expression of conditioned avoidance responding in rats.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AMPA receptor antagonists disrupt avoidance responding, but their day-to-day effect on this behavior has not been elucidated. This study compared the multisession effect of the AMPA/kainate receptor antagonist CNQX with that of the typical antipsychotic haloperidol on the expression of avoidance responding. Rats (N = 199) were trained to move to safety on presentation of a tone in one-way active conditioned avoidance and were tested across 5 sessions. Intracerebroventricular (icv) injection of CNQX (20-min injection-test interval) produced a dose-dependent, immediate block of avoidance responding, compared with the extinction-like decline of avoidance responding produced by haloperidol (intraperitoneal [ip], 60-min injection-test interval; icv, 60 but not 20-min injection-test interval). Previous exposure to CNQX significantly reduced its efficacy, illustrating that its effects may not be specific to the conditioned safety-related stimuli that control responding in conditioned avoidance, as proposed for antidopaminergic compounds. The new multisession profile of disrupted avoidance responding illustrated by CNQX suggests different roles for glutamatergic and dopaminergic neurotransmission in conditioned avoidance responding. Results are consistent with a role for AMPA receptors in maintaining the expression of 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".