2011
DOI: 10.1523/jneurosci.6182-10.2011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contrasting Roles for Dopamine D1 and D2 Receptor Subtypes in the Dorsomedial Striatum but Not the Nucleus Accumbens Core during Behavioral Inhibition in the Stop-Signal Task in Rats

Abstract: This study examined region-and receptor-specific modulation of SSRT in the rat using direct infusions of the dopamine D1 receptor (DRD1) antagonist SCH 23390 or dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2) antagonist sulpiride into the dorsomedial striatum (DMStr) or nucleus accumbens core (NAcbC). DRD1 and DRD2 antagonists had contrasting effects on SSRT that were specific to the DMStr. SCH 23390 decreased SSRT with little effect on the go response. Conversely, sulpiride increased SSRT but also increased go-trial reaction tim… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

15
113
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 138 publications
(132 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
15
113
1
Order By: Relevance
“…By contrast, the PR trials of our loss-chasing task require rats to monitor a single location for visual targets and execute simple nose-poke responses to gain rewards. On this view, our findings can be reconciled with earlier reports by noting the greater involvement of D 1 receptor activity in selective attentional aspects of the 5-CSRTT (including speedy and accurate responding), and involvement of D 2 receptors in the control over single prepared responses in our loss-chasing task (Eagle et al, 2011). More specifically, our finding that 8-OH-DPAT and eticlopride reduced the proportion of chase responses (and the number of consecutive chases per episode) and premature responses (on PR trials) point to links between aspects of gambling behavior and inhibitory control, exemplified by reports in human subjects that the control of betting behavior can be facilitated by successful inhibition of unrelated motor acts (Verbruggen et al, 2012).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…By contrast, the PR trials of our loss-chasing task require rats to monitor a single location for visual targets and execute simple nose-poke responses to gain rewards. On this view, our findings can be reconciled with earlier reports by noting the greater involvement of D 1 receptor activity in selective attentional aspects of the 5-CSRTT (including speedy and accurate responding), and involvement of D 2 receptors in the control over single prepared responses in our loss-chasing task (Eagle et al, 2011). More specifically, our finding that 8-OH-DPAT and eticlopride reduced the proportion of chase responses (and the number of consecutive chases per episode) and premature responses (on PR trials) point to links between aspects of gambling behavior and inhibitory control, exemplified by reports in human subjects that the control of betting behavior can be facilitated by successful inhibition of unrelated motor acts (Verbruggen et al, 2012).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…For example, whereas yohimbine-induced impulsivity involves activation of specific signaling cascades in the lOFC (Sun et al, 2010), lesions of the infralimbic region of PFC, not lOFC, have been reported to increase impulsive responding in the face of increasing ITIs on the 5CSRTT (Chudasama et al, 2003). Similarly, behavioral inhibition on the SSRTT may be more dependent on dorsal medial PFC and dorsal striatal activity (Bari et al, 2011;Eagle and Robbins, 2003a;Eagle et al, 2011), whereas choice behavior on the delay-discounting task may be more dependent on a circuit involving the lOFC and ventral striatum (Bezzina et al, 2008;Bezzina et al, 2007;Mobini et al, 2002). Whatever the mechanism, an increase in the likelihood of making impulsive decisions, particularly for immediate 'gratification', could certainly put individuals at a higher risk for developing addictive disorders.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Beyond these divergent clinical results, animal studies are also controversial [40]. Nevertheless, Eagle and colleagues showed recently that DA can have opposing functions on inhibitory systems depending on the receptors under scrutiny [41]. If DA is involved specifically in proactive inhibition, we hypothesize that PD patients under dopaminergic treatment should improve movement initiation latency even more when proactive inhibition is required.…”
Section: A Dopaminergic Origin Of Akinesia?mentioning
confidence: 99%