↓ Skip to main content

The Role of the Rat Medial Prefrontal Cortex in Adapting to Changes in Instrumental Contingency

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Role of the Rat Medial Prefrontal Cortex in Adapting to Changes in Instrumental Contingency
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0033302
Pubmed ID
Authors

Etienne Coutureau, Frederic Esclassan, Georges Di Scala, Alain R. Marchand

Abstract

In order to select actions appropriate to current needs, a subject must identify relationships between actions and events. Control over the environment is determined by the degree to which action consequences can be predicted, as described by action-outcome contingencies--i.e. performing an action should affect the probability of the outcome. We evaluated in a first experiment adaptation to contingency changes in rats with neurotoxic lesions of the medial prefrontal cortex. Results indicate that this brain region is not critical to adjust instrumental responding to a negative contingency where the rats must refrain from pressing a lever, as this action prevents reward delivery. By contrast, this brain region is required to reduce responding in a non-contingent situation where the same number of rewards is freely delivered and actions do not affect the outcome any more. In a second experiment, we determined that this effect does not result from a different perception of temporal relationships between actions and outcomes since lesioned rats adapted normally to gradually increasing delays in reward delivery. These data indicate that the medial prefrontal cortex is not directly involved in evaluating the correlation between action--and reward--rates or in the perception of reward delays. The deficit in lesioned rats appears to consist of an abnormal response to the balance between contingent and non-contingent rewards. By highlighting the role of prefrontal regions in adapting to the causal status of actions, these data contribute to our understanding of the neural basis of choice tasks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 5%
France 3 4%
Austria 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Ghana 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 67 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 33%
Researcher 22 27%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Student > Master 5 6%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 4 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 29 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 25%
Psychology 11 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 8 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,445
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#153,769
of 193,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,280
of 161,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,882
of 3,716 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,506 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 161,215 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,716 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.