MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Abused Inhalant Toluene Impairs Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activity and Risk/Reward Decision-Making during a Probabilistic Discounting Task

2019· article· en· W2974764043 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin M. Braunscheidel, Michael P. Okas, Michaela Hoffman, Patrick J. Mulholland, Stan Floresco, John J. Woodward

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPrefrontal cortexIntoxicative inhalantDelay discountingTask (project management)PsychologyDiscountingIowa gambling taskNeuroscienceProbabilistic logicImpulsivityCognitive psychologyClinical psychologyCognitionComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inhalant (e.g., toluene) misuse is linked to behavioral and cognitive deficits in humans, yet preclinical studies of the effect of inhalants on higher-order cognition are limited. We addressed this gap in the literature by examining the effect of toluene vapor exposure on risk/reward decision-making in male and female Sprague-Dawley rats using a probabilistic discounting task. In this task, rodents chose a risky/large reward or a safe/small reward, with the odds of risky reinforcement descending or ascending throughout the test session. We observed a dose-dependent, sex-independent deficit in behavioral flexibility during probabilistic discounting caused by acute toluene exposure. Rats exposed to toluene vapor during adolescence and tested as adults performed comparably to air-treated controls and were susceptible to the effects of an acute toluene challenge. These behavioral flexibility deficits observed suggests dysfunctional medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) activity. To address this hypothesis, we virally expressed the genetically encoded calcium sensor GCaMP6f in glutamatergic mPFC neurons and monitored calcium transients in real-time usingin vivofiber photometry. mPFC activity peaked before either lever press during free-choice trials in toluene- and air-treated animals. During forced-choice trials, GCaMP6f transients shifted from pre-risky to pre-safe choice, an effect mitigated by acute toluene exposure. mPFC activity decreased during rewarded trials, with larger decreases following risky/large wins compared with safe/small wins. Toluene-treated animals also had decreased mPFC activity during rewarded trials, but there was no distinction between risky/large wins and safe/small wins. These results provide physiological evidence for mPFC-dependent behavioral deficits caused by toluene. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTInhalants (e.g., toluene) are an understudied class of drugs of abuse that cause devastating behavioral and cognitive deficits in humans. Understanding the neurobiological interactions of toluene vapor using animal models is important for developing effective treatment strategies for inhalant addicts. Here we find that toluene vapor reduces behavioral flexibility in rodents making risk/reward-based decisions. The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) drives behavioral flexibility during this type of decision-making and we show that toluene reduces the ability of mPFC neurons to track optimal choices as reward probabilities change. Toluene also reduces these neurons' ability to distinguish between small and large rewards. A combination of these factors likely leads to the impaired performance in probabilistic discounting following acute toluene exposure.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207