Advertisement

Psychopharmacology

, Volume 115, Issue 1–2, pp 213–220 | Cite as

Crossmodal divided attention in rats: effects of chlordiazepoxide and scopolamine

  • Jill McGaughy
  • Janita Turchi
  • Martin Sarter
Original Investigations

Abstract

“Divided attention” is a psychological construct that hinges on assumptions about a fixed finite capacity of subjects to simultaneously process multiple sets of information. A model of a crossmodal divided attention task was developed in rats. Initially, rats were trained consecutively in operant auditory and visual conditional discrimination tasks. The final task consisted of two successive blocks of 20 trials per modality (modality certainty), followed by 60 trials comprising a semi-randomized sequence of stimuli of both modalities (auditory or visual) and qualities (flashing/pulsing or constantly turned on; modality uncertainty). In comparison to unimodal blocks of trials, performance in the mixed condition was assumed to reflect the demands on the parallel processing of two sets of stimulus-response rules. While response accuracy remained unchanged, response latencies were generally longer in the bimodal condition. Administration of scopolamine (0.03, 0.06, 0.1 mg/kg) or chlordiazepoxide (1, 3, 5, 8 mg/kg) dose-dependently increased response latencies. The scopolamine-induced increase in response latencies was greater in the mixed condition. Cost-benefit analyses demonstrated that the absolute divided attention costs (in ms) were generally higher for visual than for auditory stimuli. Both drugs produced qualitatively similar effects; however, scopolamine was more potent in increasing the absolute divided attention costs than chlordiazepoxide. These data are discussed in terms of the validity of this animal paradigm, and of hypotheses about the effects of benzodiazepine receptor agonists and muscarinic antagonists on brain information processing capacity.

Key words

Divided attention Scopolamine Chlordiazepoxide Rat 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allport A (1989) Visual attention. In: Posner MI (ed) Foundations of cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 631–682Google Scholar
  2. Andrews JS, Grützner M, Stephens DN (1992) Effects of cholinergic and non-cholinergic drugs on visual discrimination and delayed visual discrimination performance in rats. Psychopharmacology 106:523–530Google Scholar
  3. Baddeley AD (1992) Working memory. Science 255:556–559Google Scholar
  4. Craik FIM, Byrd M (1982) Aging and cognitive deficits. The role of attentional resources. In: Craik FIM, Trehub S (eds) Aging and cognitive processes. Plenum Press, New York, pp 191–211Google Scholar
  5. Curran HV (1991a) Antianxiety treatments and human memory. In: Briley M, File SE (eds) New concepts in anxiety. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 395–405Google Scholar
  6. Curran HV (1991b) Benzodiazepines, memory and mood: a review. Psychopharmacology 105:1–8Google Scholar
  7. Curran VA, Schifano F, Lader M (1991) Models of memory dysfunction? A comparison of the effects of scopolamine and lorazepam on memory, psychomotor performance and mood. Psychopharmacology 103:83–90Google Scholar
  8. Dudchenko P, Sarter M (1991) GABAergic control of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons and memory. Behav Brain Res 42:33–41Google Scholar
  9. Dudchenko P, Sarter M (1992) Failure of chlordiazepoxide to reproduce the behavioral effects of muscimol administered into the basal forebrain. Behav Brain Res 47:202–205Google Scholar
  10. Dudchenko P, Paul B, Sarter M (1992) Dissociation between the effects of benzodiazepine receptor agonists on behavioral vigilance and responsivity. Psychopharmacology 109:203–211Google Scholar
  11. Dunne MP, Hartley LR (1986) Scopolamine and the control of attention in humans. Psychopharmacology 89:94–97Google Scholar
  12. Everitt BJ, Robbins TW, Evenden JL, Marston HM, Jones GH, Sirkiä TE (1987) The effects of excitotoxic lesions of the substantia innominata, ventral and dorsal globus pallidus on the acquisition and retention of a conditional visual discrimination: implications for cholinergic hypotheses of learning and memory. Neuroscience 22:441–469Google Scholar
  13. Falkenstein M, Hohnsbein J, Hoorman J, Blanke L (1991) Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. II. Error processing in choice reaction tasks. EEG Clin Neurophysiol 78:447–455Google Scholar
  14. Filoteo JV, Delis DC, Massman PJ, Demadura T, Butters N, Salmon DP (1992) Directed and divided attention in Alzheimer's disease: impairment in shifting of attention to global and local stimuli. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 14:871–883Google Scholar
  15. Grady CL, Grimes AM, Patronas N, Sunderland T, Foster NL, Rapaport SI (1989) Divided attention, as measured by dichotic speech performance, in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Arch Neurol 46:317–320Google Scholar
  16. Hineline PN (1984) Can a statement in cognitive terms be a behavior-analytic interpretation? Behav Anal 7:97–100Google Scholar
  17. Hirst W (1986) The psychology of attention. In: LeDoux JE, Hirst W (eds) Mind and brain. Dialogues in cognitive neuroscience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 105–141Google Scholar
  18. Hohnsbein J, Falkenstein M, Hoorman J, Blanke L (1991) Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. I. Simple and choice reaction time tasks. EEG Clin Neurophysiol 78:438–446Google Scholar
  19. Kesner RP (1984) The neurobiology of memory: implicit and explicit assumptions. In: Lynch G, McGaugh JL, Weinberger NM (eds) Neurobiology of learning and memory Guilford Press, N.Y., pp 111–118Google Scholar
  20. Kinchla RA (1992) Attention. Annu Rev Psychol 43:711–742Google Scholar
  21. Margules DL, Stein L (1967) Neuroleptics versus tranquilizers: evidence from animal studies of mode and site of action. In: Brill H, Cole JO, Deniker P, Hippius H, Bradley PB (eds) Neuropsychopharmacology. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam, pp 108–120Google Scholar
  22. McDowd JM, Craik FIM (1988) Effects of aging and task difficulty on divided attention performance. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept] 14:267–280Google Scholar
  23. Moore H, Dudchenko P, Bruno JP, Sarter M (1992a) Toward modeling age-related changes in attentional abilities in rats: simple and choice reaction time tasks and vigilance Neurobiol Aging 13:759–772Google Scholar
  24. Moore H, Dudchenko P, Comer KS, Bruno JP, Sarter M (1992b) Central versus peripheral effects of muscarinic antagonists: the limitations of quaternary ammonium derivatives Psychopharmacology 108:241–243Google Scholar
  25. Moore H, Sarter M, Bruno JP (1992c) Age-dependent modulation of in vivo cortical acetylcholine release by benzodiazepine receptor ligands. Brain Res 596:17–29Google Scholar
  26. Moore H, Sarter M, Bruno JP (1993) Bidirectional modulation of stimulated cortical acetylcholine release by benzodiazepine receptor inverse agonists. Brain Res 627:267–274Google Scholar
  27. Morris RGM (1984) Is the distinction between procedural and declarative memory useful with respect to animal model of amnesia? In: Lynch G, McGaugh JL, Weinberger NM (eds) Neurobiology of learning and memory. Guilford, N.Y., pp 119–124Google Scholar
  28. Olton DS, Wenk GL, Church RM, Meck WH (1988) Attention and the frontal cortex as examined by simultaneous temporal processing. Neuropsychology 26:307–318Google Scholar
  29. Pashler H (1993) Doing two things at the same time. Am Sci 81:48–55Google Scholar
  30. Preston GC, Broks P, Traub M, Ward C, Poppleton P, Stahl SM (1988) Effects of lorazepam on memory, attention and sedation in man. Psychopharmacology 95:208–215Google Scholar
  31. Rusted JM, Eaton-Williams P, Warburton DM (1991) A comparison of the effects of scopolamine and diazepam on working memory. Psychopharmacology 105:442–445Google Scholar
  32. Salthouse TA (1982) Adult cognition: an experimental psychology of human aging. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Salthouse TA (1985) Speed of behavior and its implications for cognition. In: Birren JE, Schaie KW (eds) Handbook of the psychology of aging. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 400–426Google Scholar
  34. Sarter M (1990) Retrieval of well-learned propositional rules: insensitive to changes in activity of individual neurotransmitter systems? Psychobiology 18:451–459Google Scholar
  35. Sarter M, Dudchenko P, Moore H, Holley LA, Bruno JP (1992) Cognition enhancement based on GABA-cholinergic interactions. In: Levin ED, Decker M, Butcher LL (eds) Neurotransmitter interactions and cognitive function. Birkhäuser, Boston, pp 329–354Google Scholar
  36. Schneider W, Shiffrin RM (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing. I. Detection, search and attention. Psychol Rev 84:1–66Google Scholar
  37. Wesnes K, Simpson P, Kidd A (1988) An investigation of the range of cognitive impairments induced by scopolamine 0.6 mg s.c. Hum Psychopharmacology 3:27–41Google Scholar
  38. Wickens CD (1984) Engineering psychology and human performance. Harper Collins, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  39. Wright RE (1981) Aging, divided attention, and processing capacity. J Gerontol 36:605–614Google Scholar
  40. Zar JH (1974) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, N.J.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jill McGaughy
    • 1
  • Janita Turchi
    • 1
  • Martin Sarter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations