Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
A Preclinical Model of Computerized Cognitive Training: Touchscreen Cognitive Testing Enhances Cognition and Hippocampal Cellular Plasticity in Wildtype and Alzheimer's Disease Mice
Shepherd A, Zhang T, Hoffmann LB, Zeleznikow-Johnston AM, Churilov L, Hannan AJ, Burrows EL.. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2021-12-06
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
With the growing popularity of touchscreen cognitive testing in rodents, it is imperative to understand the fundamental effects exposure to this paradigm can have on the animals involved. In this study, we set out to assess hippocampal-dependant learning in the APP/PS1 mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (AD) on two highly translatable touchscreen tasks - the Paired Associate Learning (PAL) task and the Trial Unique Non-Matching to Location (TUNL) task. Both of these tests are based on human tasks from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) and are sensitive to deficits in both mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD. Mice were assessed for deficits in PAL at 9-12 months of age, then on TUNL at 8-11 and 13-16 months. No cognitive deficits were evident in APP/PS1 mice at any age, contrary to previous reports using maze-based learning and memory tasks. We hypothesized that daily and long-term touchscreen training may have inadvertently acted as a cognitive enhancer. When touchscreen-tested mice were assessed on the Morris water maze, they showed improved task acquisition compared to naïve APP/PS1 mice and wild-type (WT) littermate controls. In addition, we show that touchscreen-trained WT and APP/PS1 mice show increased cell proliferation and immature neuron numbers in the dentate gyrus compared to behaviorally naïve WT and APP/PS1 mice. This result indicates that the touchscreen testing paradigm could improve cognitive performance, and/or mask an impairment, in experimental mouse models. This touchscreen-induced cognitive enhancement may involve increased neurogenesis, and possibly other forms of cellular plasticity. This is the first study to show increased numbers of proliferating cells and immature neurons in the hippocampus following touchscreen testing, and that touchscreen training can improve cognitive performance in maze-based spatial navigation tasks. This potential for touchscreen testing to induce cognitive enhancement, or other phenotypic shifts, in preclinical models should be considered in study design. Furthermore, touchscreen-mediated cognitive enhancement could have therapeutic implications for cognitive disorders.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Shepherd, A., Zhang, T., Hoffmann, L. B., Zeleznikow-Johnston, A. M., Churilov, L., Hannan, A. J., et al. (2021). A Preclinical Model of Computerized Cognitive Training: Touchscreen Cognitive Testing Enhances Cognition and Hippocampal Cellular Plasticity in Wildtype and Alzheimer's Disease Mice. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.766745
Vancouver
Shepherd A, Zhang T, Hoffmann LB, Zeleznikow-Johnston AM, Churilov L, Hannan AJ, et al. A Preclinical Model of Computerized Cognitive Training: Touchscreen Cognitive Testing Enhances Cognition and Hippocampal Cellular Plasticity in Wildtype and Alzheimer's Disease Mice. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience. 2021. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2021.766745. PMID: 34938165.
BibTeX
@article{shepherd2021-34938165,
author = {Shepherd, A. and Zhang, T. and Hoffmann, L. B. and Zeleznikow-Johnston, A. M. and Churilov, L. and Hannan, A. J. and Burrows, E. L.},
title = {{A Preclinical Model of Computerized Cognitive Training: Touchscreen Cognitive Testing Enhances Cognition and Hippocampal Cellular Plasticity in Wildtype and Alzheimer's Disease Mice}},
journal = {Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.3389/fnbeh.2021.766745},
pmid = {34938165},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2021.766745}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- When touchscreen-tested mice were assessed on the Morris water maze, they showed improved task acquisition compared to naïve APP/PS1 mice and wild-type (WT) littermate controls.
- In addition, we show that touchscreen-trained WT and APP/PS1 mice show increased cell proliferation and immature neuron numbers in the dentate gyrus compared to behaviorally naïve WT and APP/PS1 mice.
- This result indicates that the touchscreen testing paradigm could improve cognitive performance, and/or mask an impairment, in experimental mouse models.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Laboratory or animal study (title names “mice”) — scores zero |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34938165) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “cellular”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cellular”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.