Mice with mOFC

Mice with mOFC Epacadostat mouse lesions acquired the reversal but failed to inhibit responding on the previously reinforced aperture, while mice with prelimbic prefrontal cortex lesions were unaffected. When tested on a progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement, mice with prelimbic cortical lesions were unable to maintain responding, resulting in declining response levels. Mice with

mOFC lesions, by contrast, escalated responding. Neither lesion affected sensitivity to satiety-specific outcome devaluation or non-reinforcement (i.e. extinction), and neither had effects when placed after animals were trained on a progressive ratio response schedule. Lesions of the ventral hippocampus, which projects to the mOFC, resulted in similar response patterns, while lateral OFC and dorsal hippocampus lesions resulted in response acquisition, though not inhibition, deficits in an instrumental reversal. Our findings thus selectively implicate the rodent mOFC in braking reinforced goal-directed action when reinforcement requires the acquisition of novel response contingencies. “
“Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective tool for inducing functional plastic changes in the brain. rTMS can also potentiate the effects of other interventions such as tactile coactivation, a form of repetitive stimulation, Cell Cycle inhibitor when both

are applied simultaneously. In this study, we investigated the interaction of these techniques in

affecting tactile acuity and cortical excitability, measured with somatosensory evoked potentials after paired median nerve stimulation. We first applied a session of 5-Hz rTMS, followed by a session of tactile repetitive stimulation, consisting of intermittent high-frequency tactile stimulation (iHFS) to a group of 15 healthy volunteers Elongation factor 2 kinase (“rTMS + iHFS” group). In a second group (“rTMS w/o iHFS”), rTMS was applied without iHFS, with a third assessment performed after a similar wait period. In the rTMS w/o iHFS group, the 5-Hz rTMS induced an increase in cortical excitability that continued to build for at least 25 min after stimulation, with the effect on excitability after the wait period being inversely correlated to the baseline state. In the rTMS + iHFS group, the second intervention prevented the continued increase in excitability after rTMS. In contrast to the effect on cortical excitability, rTMS produced an improvement in tactile acuity that remained stable until the last assessment, independent of the presence or absence of iHFS. Our results show that these methods can interact homeostatically when used consecutively, and suggest that different measures of cortical plasticity are differentially susceptible to homeostatic interactions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>