Advertisement

Psychopharmacology

, Volume 205, Issue 1, pp 157–168 | Cite as

A novel touchscreen-automated paired-associate learning (PAL) task sensitive to pharmacological manipulation of the hippocampus: a translational rodent model of cognitive impairments in neurodegenerative disease

  • J. C. TalposEmail author
  • B. D. Winters
  • R. Dias
  • L. M. Saksida
  • T. J. Bussey
Original Investigation

Abstract

Rationale

Paired-associate learning (PAL), as part of the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery, is able to predict who from an at-risk population will develop Alzheimer’s disease. Schizophrenic patients are also impaired on this same task. An automated rodent model of PAL would be extremely beneficial in further research into Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia.

Objective

The objective of this study was to develop a PAL task using touchscreen-equipped operant boxes and test its sensitivity to manipulations of the hippocampus, a brain region of interest in both Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia.

Materials and methods

Previous work has shown that spatial and non-spatial memory can be tested in touchscreen-equipped operant boxes. Using this same apparatus, rats were trained on two variants of a PAL task differing only in the nature of the S− (the unrewarded stimuli, a combination of image and location upon the screen). Rats underwent cannulation of the dorsal hippocampus, and after recovery were tested under the influence of intra-hippocampally administered glutamatergic and cholinergic antagonists while performing the PAL task.

Results

Impairments were seen after the administration of glutamatergic antagonists, but not cholinergic antagonists, in one of the two versions of PAL.

Conclusions

De-activation of the hippocampus caused impairments in a PAL task. The selective nature of this effect (only one of the two tasks was impaired), suggests the effect is specific to cognition and cannot be attributed to gross impairments (changes in visual learning). The pattern of results suggests that rodent PAL may be suitable as a translational model of PAL in humans.

Keywords

Lidocaine MK-801 CNQX Scopolamine Mecamylamine Schizophrenia Alzheimer’s disease Direct administration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant to TJB and LMS from the Wellcome Trust, Number 071493/Z/03/Z. John Talpos was funded by a Merck, Sharp, & Dohme Ph.D. fellowship.

References

  1. Barnett JH, Sahakian BJ, Werners U, Hill KE, Brazil R, Gallagher O, Bullmore ET, Jones PB (2005) Visuospatial learning and executive function are independently impaired in first-episode psychosis. Psychol Med 35:1031–1041PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartus RT, Dean RL 3rd, Beer B, Lippa AS (1982) The cholinergic hypothesis of geriatric memory dysfunction. Science 217:408–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackwell AD, Sahakian BJ, Vesey R, Semple JM, Robbins TW, Hodges JR (2004) Detecting dementia: novel neuropsychological markers of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 17:42–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boeijinga PH, Mulder AB, Pennartz CM, Manshanden I, Lopes da Silva FH (1993) Responses of the nucleus accumbens following fornix/fimbria stimulation in the rat. Identification and long-term potentiation of mono- and polysynaptic pathways. Neuroscience 53:1049–1058PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyer P, Phillips JL, Rousseau FL, Ilivitsky S (2007) Hippocampal abnormalities and memory deficits: new evidence of a strong pathophysiological link in schizophrenia. Brain Res Rev 54:92–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braak H, Braak E (1997) Frequency of stages of Alzheimer-related lesions in different age categories. Neurobiol Aging 18:351–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brigman JL, Bussey TJ, Saksida LM, Rothblat LA (2005) Discrimination of multidimensional visual stimuli by mice: intra- and extradimensional shifts. Behav Neurosci 119:839–842PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brigman JL, Feyder M, Saksida LM, Bussey TJ, Mishina M, Holmes A (2008) Impaired discrimination learning in mice lacking the NMDA receptor NR2A subunit. Learn Mem 15:50–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broadbent NJ, Squire LR, Clark RE (2006) Reversible hippocampal lesions disrupt water maze performance during both recent and remote memory tests. Learn Mem 13:187–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunsey M, Eichenbaum H (1993) Critical role of the parahippocampal region for paired-associate learning in rats. Behav Neurosci 107:740–747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burgess N (2008) Spatial cognition and the brain. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1124:77–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bussey TJ, Muir JL, Robbins TW (1994) A novel automated touchscreen procedure for assessing learning in the rat using a computer graphic stimuli. Neurosci Res Commun 15:365–374Google Scholar
  13. Bussey TJ, Everitt BJ, Robbins TW (1997a) Dissociable effects of cingulate and medial frontal cortex lesions on stimulus-reward learning using a novel Pavlovian autoshaping procedure for the rat: implications for the neurobiology of emotion. Behav Neurosci 111:908–919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bussey TJ, Muir JL, Everitt BJ, Robbins TW (1997b) Triple dissociation of anterior cingulate, posterior cingulate, and medial frontal cortices on visual discrimination tasks using a touchscreen testing procedure for the rat. Behav Neurosci 111:920–936PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bussey TJ, Clea WE, Aggleton JP, Muir JL (1998) Fornix lesions can facilitate acquisition of the transverse patterning task: a challenge for “configural” theories of hippocampal function. J Neurosci 18:1622–1631Google Scholar
  16. Bussey TJ, Dias R, Redhead ES, Pearce JM, Muir JL, Aggleton JP (2000) Intact negative patterning in rats with fornix or combined perirhinal and postrhinal cortex lesions. Exp Brain Res 134:506–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bussey TJ, Padain TL, Skillings EA, Winters BD, Morton AJ, Saksida LM (2008) The touchscreen cognitive testing method for rodents: how to get the best out of your rat. Learn Mem 15:516–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chang Q, Gold PE (2003) Intra-hippocampal lidocaine injections impair acquisition of a place task and facilitate acquisition of a response task in rats. Behav Brain Res 144:19–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Day M, Langston R, Morris RG (2003) Glutamate-receptor-mediated encoding and retrieval of paired-associate learning. Nature 424:205–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Rover M, Pironti V (2008) Hippocampal dysfunction in patients suffering from Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI): a functional neuroimaging study.Google Scholar
  21. Ersche KD, Clark L, London M, Robbins TW, Sahakian BJ (2006) Profile of executive and memory function associated with amphetamine and opiate dependence. Neuropsychopharmacology 31:1036–1047PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Farlow MR (2004) NMDA receptor antagonists. A new therapeutic approach for Alzheimer’s disease. Geriatrics 59:22–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Farr SA, Banks WA, La Scola ME, Flood JF, Morley JE (2000) Permanent and temporary inactivation of the hippocampus impairs T-maze footshock avoidance acquisition and retention. Brain Res 872:242–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Floresco SB, Seamans JK, Phillips AG (1996) Differential effects of lidocaine infusions into the ventral CA1/subiculum or the nucleus accumbens on the acquisition and retention of spatial information. Behav Brain Res 81:163–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frey KA, Howland M (1992) Quantitative autoradiography of muscarinic cholinergic receptor binding in the rat brain: distinction of receptor subtypes in antagonist competition assays. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 263:1391–1400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Gaffan D (1977) Recognition memory after short retention intervals in fornix-transected monkeys. Q J Exp Psychol 29:577–588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gilbert PE, Kesner RP (2002) Role of the rodent hippocampus in paired-associate learning involving associations between a stimulus and a spatial location. Behav Neurosci 116:63–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilbert PE, Kesner RP (2003) Localization of function within the dorsal hippocampus: the role of the CA3 subregion in paired-associate learning. Behav Neurosci 117:1385–1394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gilbert PE, Kesner RP (2004) Memory for objects and their locations: the role of the hippocampus in retention of object-place associations. Neurobiol Learn Mem 81:39–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hasselmo ME (2006) The role of acetylcholine in learning and memory. Curr Opin Neurobiol 16:710–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hasselmo ME, McGaughy J (2004) High acetylcholine levels set circuit dynamics for attention and encoding and low acetylcholine levels set dynamics for consolidation. Prog Brain Res 145:207–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Honoré T, Davies SN, Drejer J, Fletcher EJ, Jacobsen P, Lodge D, Nielsen FE (1988) Quinoxalinediones: Potent competative non-NMDA glutamate receptor antagonists. Science 241:701–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Janisiewicz AM, Baxter MG (2003) Transfer effects and conditional learning in rats with selective lesions of medial septal/diagonal band cholinergic neurons. Behav Neurosci 117:1342–1352Google Scholar
  34. Katner SN, Davis SA, Kirsten AJ, Taffe MA (2004) Effects of nicotine and mecamylamine on cognition in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 175:225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kim J, Levin E (1996) Nicotinic, muscarinic and dopaminergic actions in the ventral hippocampus and the nucleus accumbens: effects on spatial working memory in rats. Brain Res 725:231–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Marti Barros D, Ramirez M, Dos Reis E, Izquierdo I (2004) Participation of hippocampal nicotinic receptors in acquisition, consolidation and retrieval of memory for one trial inhibitory avoidance in rats. Neuroscience 126:651–656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin TJ, Suchocki J, May EL, Martin BR (1990) Pharmacological evaluation of the antagonism of nicotine’s central effects by mecamylamine and pempidine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 254:45–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Meunier M, Bachevalier J, Mishkin M, Murray EA (1993) Effects on visual recognition of combined and separate ablations of the entorhinal and perirhinal cortex in rhesus monkeys. J Neurosci 13:5418–5432PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Morton AJ, Skillings E, Bussey TJ, Saksida LM (2006) Measuring cognitive deficits in disabled mice using an automated interactive touchscreen system. Nat Methods 3:767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murray EA, Bussey TJ, Saksida LM (2007) Visual perception and memory: a new view of medial temporal lobe function in primates and rodents. Annu Rev Neurosci 30:99–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nestor PJ, Scheltens P, Hodges JR (2004) Advances in the early detection of Alzheimer’s disease. Nat Med 10(Suppl):S34–S41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ohno M, Yamamoto T, Watanabe S (1993) Blockade of hippocampal nicotinic receptors impairs working memory but not reference memory in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 45:89–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. O’Keefe J, Nadel L, Keightley S, Kill D (1975) Fornix lesions selectively abolish place learning in the rat. Exp Neurol 48:152–166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Owen MJ, Butler SR (1981) Amnesia after transection of the fornix in monkeys: long-term memory impaired, short-term memory intact. Behav Brain Res 3:115–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Owen AM, Sahakian BJ, Semple J, Polkey CE, Robbins TW (1995) Visuo-spatial short-term recognition memory and learning after temporal lobe excisions, frontal lobe excisions or amygdalo-hippocampectomy in man. Neuropsychologia 33:1–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parent MB, Baxter MG (2004) Septohippocampal acetylcholine: involved in but not necessary for learning and memory? Learn Mem 11:9–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Park SB, Coull JT, McShane RH, Young AH, Sahakian BJ, Robbins TW, Cowen PJ (1994) Tryptophan depletion in normal volunteers produces selective impairments in learning and memory. Neuropharmacology 33:575–588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parron C, Poucet B, Save E (2004) Entorhinal cortex lesions impair the use of distal but not proximal landmarks during place navigation in the rat. Behav Brain Res 154:345–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paxinos G, Watson C (1998) The rat brain. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Power AE, Vazdarjanova A, McGaugh JL (2003) Muscarinic cholinergic influences in memory consolidation. Neurobiol Learn Mem 80:178–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robbins TW, Murphy ER (2006) Behavioural pharmacology: 40 + years of progress, with a focus on glutamate receptors and cognition. Trends Pharmacol Sci 27:141–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Robbins TW, Semple J, Kumar R, Truman MI, Shorter J, Ferraro A, Fox B, McKay G, Matthews K (1997) Effects of scopolamine on delayed-matching-to-sample and paired associates tests of visual memory and learning in human subjects: comparison with diazepam and implications for dementia. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 134:95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Robinson JK, Mao JB (1997) Differential effects on delayed non-matching-to-position in rats of microinjections of muscarinic receptor antagonist scopolamine or NMDA receptor antagonist MK-801 into the dorsal or ventral extent of the hippocampus. Brain Res 765:51–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sahakian BJ, Morris RG, Evenden JL, Heald A, Levy R, Philpot M, Robbins TW (1988) A comparative study of visuospatial memory and learning in Alzheimer-type dementia and Parkinson’s disease. Brain 111(Pt 3):695–718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Saksida LM, Bussey TJ, Buckmaster CA, Murray EA (2006) No effect of hippocampal lesions on perirhinal cortex-dependent feature-ambiguous visual discriminations. Hippocampus 16:421–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saksida L, Bartko S, Wess J, Bussey T (2008) Investigating Cholinergic function in muscarinic receptor-deficient mice in a novel automated computer touchscreen task battery. Society for Neuroscience, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  57. Seamans JK, Phillips AG (1994) Selective memory impairments produced by transient lidocaine-induced lesions of the nucleus accumbens in rats. Behav Neurosci 108:456–468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Swainson R, Hodges JR, Galton CJ, Semple J, Michael A, Dunn BD, Iddon JL, Robbins TW, Sahakian BJ (2001) Early detection and differential diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and depression with neuropsychological tasks. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 12:265–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taffe MA, Weed MR, Gold LH (1999) Scopolamine alters rhesus monkey performance on a novel neuropsychological test battery. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 8:203–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Taffe MA, Weed MR, Gutierrez T, Davis SA, Gold LH (2002) Differential muscarinic and NMDA contributions to visuo-spatial paired-associate learning in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 160:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Taffe MA, Weed MR, Gutierrez T, Davis SA, Gold LH (2004) Modeling a task that is sensitive to dementia of the Alzheimer’s type: individual differences in acquisition of a visuo-spatial paired-associate learning task in rhesus monkeys. Behav Brain Res 149:123–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Talpos JC (2006) Modelling cognitive disorders associated with hippocampal dysfunction: a novel automated test battery. Experimental Psychology. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, p 181Google Scholar
  63. Talpos JC, Dias R, Bussey TJ, Saksida LM (2008) Hippocampal lesions in rats impair learning and memory for locations on a touch-sensitive computer screen: The "ASAT" task. Behav Brain Res 192(2):216–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tse D, Langston R, Kakeyama M, Wood E, Morris R (2006) Schema and memory consolidation: paired associate memory can rapidly consolidate and become hippocampal independent. Federation of European Neuroscience Socities, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  65. Tse D, Langston RF, Kakeyama M, Bethus I, Spooner PA, Wood ER, Witter MP, Morris RG (2007) Schemas and memory consolidation. Science 316:76–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vianna M, Alonso M, Viola H, Quevedo J, de Paris F, Furman M, de Stein M, Medina J, Izquierdo I (2000) Role of hippocampal signaling pathways in long-term memory formation of a nonassociative learning task in the rat. Learning and memory 7:330–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Von Huben SN, Davis SA, Lay CC, Katner SN, Crean RD, Taffe MA (2006) Differential contributions of dopaminergic D1- and D2-like receptors to cognitive function in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 188:586–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Winters BD, Forwood SE, Cowell RA, Saksida LM, Bussey TJ (2004) Double dissociation between the effects of peri-postrhinal cortex and hippocampal lesions on tests of object recognition and spatial memory: heterogeneity of function within the temporal lobe. J Neurosci 24:5901–5908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wong HF, Kemp JA, Priestley T, Knight AR, Woodruff GN, Iversen LL (1986) The anticonvulsant MK-801 is a potent N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci 83:7104–7108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wood SJ, Proffitt T, Mahony K, Smith DJ, Buchanan JA, Brewer W, Stuart GW, Velakoulis D, McGorry PD, Pantelis C (2002) Visuospatial memory and learning in firstepisode schizophreniform psychosis and established schizophrenia: a functional correlate of hippocampal pathology? Psychol Med 32:429–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. C. Talpos
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  • B. D. Winters
    • 2
  • R. Dias
    • 3
  • L. M. Saksida
    • 1
    • 4
  • T. J. Bussey
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  3. 3.Merck, Sharp & DohmeHarlowUK
  4. 4.The MRC and Wellcome Trust Behavioral and Clinical Neuroscience InstituteUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  5. 5.Eli LillyErl Wood ManorWindleshamUK

Personalised recommendations