z-logo
Premium
Neonatal alcohol exposure impairs acquisition of eyeblink conditioned responses during discrimination learning and reversal in weanling rats
Author(s) -
Brown Kevin L.,
Calizo Lyngine H.,
Goodlett Charles R.,
Stanton Mark E.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
developmental psychobiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.055
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1098-2302
pISSN - 0012-1630
DOI - 10.1002/dev.20178
Subject(s) - eyeblink conditioning , weanling , psychology , brainstem , conditioning , alcohol , classical conditioning , hippocampus , neuroscience , developmental psychology , physiology , medicine , chemistry , biochemistry , statistics , mathematics
Discrimination and reversal of the classically conditioned eyeblink response depends on cerebellar–brainstem interactions with the hippocampus. Neonatal “binge” exposure to alcohol at doses of 5 g/kg/day or more has been shown to impair single‐cue eyeblink conditioning in both weanling and adult rats. The present study exposed neonatal rats to acute alcohol intubations across different developmental periods (postnatal day [PND] 4‐9 or PND7‐9) and tested them from PND26‐31 on discriminative classical eyeblink conditioning and reversal. A high dose of alcohol (5 g/kg/day) dramatically impaired conditioning relative to controls when exposure occurred over PND4‐9, but produced mild or no impairments when delivered over PND7‐9. These findings support previous claims that developmental exposure period plays a critical role in determining the deleterious effects of alcohol on the developing brain. A lower dose of alcohol (4 g/kg/day) delivered from PND4‐9—lower than has previously been shown to affect single‐cue eyeblink conditioning—also produced deficits on the discrimination task, suggesting that discrimination learning and acquisition of responding to CS+ during reversal may be especially sensitive behavioral indicators of alcohol‐induced brain damage in this rat model. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Dev Psychobiol 49: 243–257, 2007.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here