Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNilsson, Simonen
dc.contributor.authorAlsiö, Johanen
dc.contributor.authorSomerville, Elizabeth Men
dc.contributor.authorClifton, Peter Gen
dc.date.accessioned2015-06-25T14:18:42Z
dc.date.available2015-06-25T14:18:42Z
dc.date.issued2015-06-22en
dc.identifier.citationNilsson et al. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews (2015) Vol. 56, pp. 1-14en
dc.identifier.issn0149-7634
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/248724
dc.description.abstractExecutive function is commonly assessed by assays of cognitive flexibility such as reversal learning and attentional set shifting. Disrupted performance in these assays, apparent in many neuropsychiatric disorders, is frequently interpreted as inability to overcome prior associations with reward. However, non-rewarded or irrelevant associations may be of considerable importance in both discrimination learning and cognitive flexibility. Non-rewarded associations can have greater influence on choice behaviour than rewarded associations in discrimination learning. Pathology-related deficits in cognitive flexibility can produce selective disruptions to both the processing of irrelevant associations and associations with reward. Genetic and pharmacological animal models demonstrate that modulation of reversal learning may result from alterations in either rewarded or non-rewarded associations. Successful performance in assays of cognitive flexibility can therefore depend on a combination of rewarded, non-rewarded, and irrelevant associations derived from previous learning, accounting for some inconsistencies observed in the literature. Taking this combination into account may increase the validity of animal models and may also reveal pathology-specific differences in problem solving and executive function.
dc.description.sponsorshipSupported by BBSRC and Eli Lilly through CASE studentship (BB/F529054/1). J.A. was supported by the Swedish Research Council (350-2012-230). The Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute is co-funded by the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.
dc.languageEnglishen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.rightsAttribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/
dc.subjectreversal learningen
dc.subjectattentional set shiftingen
dc.subjectdiscrimination learningen
dc.subjectcognitive flexibilityen
dc.subjectanimal modelsen
dc.titleThe Rat’s not for Turning: Dissociating the Psychological Components of Cognitive Inflexibilityen
dc.typeArticle
dc.description.versionThis is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.06.015en
prism.endingPage14
prism.publicationDate2015en
prism.publicationNameNeuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviewsen
prism.startingPage1
prism.volume56en
dc.rioxxterms.funderBBSRC
dc.rioxxterms.funderMRC
dc.rioxxterms.funderWellcome Trust
dc.rioxxterms.projectidBB/F529054/1
dcterms.dateAccepted2015-06-10en
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.06.015en
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2015-06-22en
dc.identifier.eissn1873-7528
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales