Home › Research › Treatments
The continuous performance test (rCPT) for mice: a novel operant touchscreen test of attentional function
Kim CH, Hvoslef-Eide M, Nilsson SR, Johnson MR, Herbert BR, Robbins TW, Saksida LM, Bussey TJ et al.. Psychopharmacology, 2015-09-29
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Plain-language summary
Rationale Continuous performance tests (CPTs) are widely used to assess attentional processes in a variety of disorders including Alzheimer's disease and schizophrenia. Common human CPTs require discrimination of sequentially presented, visually patterned 'target' and 'non-target' stimuli at a single location. Objectives The aims of this study were to evaluate the performance of three popular mouse strains on a novel rodent touchscreen test (rCPT) designed to be analogous to common human CPT variants and to investigate the effects of donepezil, a cholinesterase inhibitor and putative cognitive enhancer. Methods C57BL/6J, DBA/2J and CD1 mice (n = 15-16/strain) were trained to baseline performance using four rCPT training stages. Then, probe tests assessed the effects of parameter changes on task performance: stimulus size, duration, contrast, probability, inter-trial interval or inclusion of flanker distractors. rCPT performance was also evaluated following acute administration of donepezil (0-3 mg/kg, i.p.). Results C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice showed similar acquisition rates and final baseline performance following rCPT training. On probe tests, rCPT performance of both strains was sensitive to alteration of visual and/or attentional demands (stimulus size, duration, contrast, rate, flanker distraction). Relative to C57BL/6J, DBA/2J mice exhibited (1) decreasing sensitivity (d') across the 45-min session, (2) reduced performance on probes where the appearance of stimuli or adjacent areas were changed (size, contrast, flanking distractors) and (3) larger dose- and stimulus duration-dependent changes in performance following donepezil administration. In contrast, CD1 mice failed to acquire rCPT (stage 3) and pairwise visual discrimination tasks. Conclusions rCPT is a potentially useful translational tool for assessing attention in mice and for detecting the effects of nootropic drugs.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kim, C. H., Hvoslef-Eide, M., Nilsson, SR., Johnson, M. R., Herbert, B. R., Robbins, T. W., et al. (2015). The continuous performance test (rCPT) for mice: a novel operant touchscreen test of attentional function. Psychopharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-015-4081-0
Vancouver
Kim CH, Hvoslef-Eide M, Nilsson SR, Johnson MR, Herbert BR, Robbins TW, et al. The continuous performance test (rCPT) for mice: a novel operant touchscreen test of attentional function. Psychopharmacology. 2015. doi:10.1007/s00213-015-4081-0. PMID: 26415954.
BibTeX
@article{kim2015-26415954,
author = {Kim, C. H. and Hvoslef-Eide, M. and Nilsson, SR. and Johnson, M. R. and Herbert, B. R. and Robbins, T. W. and Saksida, L. M. and Bussey, T. J. and others},
title = {{The continuous performance test (rCPT) for mice: a novel operant touchscreen test of attentional function}},
journal = {Psychopharmacology},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1007/s00213-015-4081-0},
pmid = {26415954},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-015-4081-0}
}
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice showed similar acquisition rates and final baseline performance following rCPT training.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Participants15
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Psychopharmacology) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 15 participants |
| 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 |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26415954) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments from nearby years
Also tagged “performance”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “performance”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.