Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Neuropharmacology. 2011 Jun 29;62(3):1381–1390. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.06.013

Mouse pharmacological models of cognitive disruption relevant to schizophrenia

Jared W YOUNG 1,*, Susan B POWELL 1, Mark A GEYER 1,2
PMCID: PMC3217063  NIHMSID: NIHMS308172  PMID: 21726569

Abstract

Schizophrenia is a debilitating cognitive disorder. The link between cognitive debilitation and functional outcome in patients with schizophrenia has prompted research to develop procognitive therapies. It is hoped that by improving cognition in these patients, their functional outcome will also improve. Although no established treatments exist as yet, progress has been made toward understanding how to evaluate putative compounds in the clinic. Genetic mouse models and pharmacological rat models of cognitive disruption are being developed that may help to evaluate these putative compounds preclinically. Considering the increased number of genetic mouse models relevant to schizophrenia, there is a need to evaluate pharmacological manipulations on cognition in mice. Here we review the current literature on mouse pharmacological models relevant to schizophrenia. In this review, we discuss where different pharmacological effects between rats and mice on cognitive tasks are observed and assess the validity offered by these models. We conclude that the predictive validity of these models is currently difficult to assess and that much more needs to be done to develop useful mouse pharmacological models of cognitive disruption in schizophrenia.

Keywords: Mice; pharmacological; animal models; schizophrenia; learning; memory; attention; phencyclidine, amphetamine, scopolamine

1. Introduction

1.1. Cognitive dysfunction in schizophrenia

Kraepelin (1896) first described as dementia praecox the disorder now known as schizophrenia. Schizophrenia carries a lifetime risk of 1% (Cannon and Jones, 1996), and has both a genetic and environmental etiology (lifetime risk for a dizygotic twin of a patient with schizophrenia is ~40%, (Klaning, 1999; van Os and McGuffin, 2003). Traditional diagnosis of schizophrenia has been based on characterized positive and negative symptoms (Andreasen et al., 1997; Pearlson, 2000). Cognitive deficits are also observed in these patients however and are recognized as core to the disorder, correlating most closely with functional outcome (Green, 1996, 2006). Current treatments for schizophrenia are primarily efficacious at treating positive symptoms, with limited if any efficacy at treating negative or cognitive symptoms (Carter, 2005; Harvey and Keefe, 2001; Keefe et al., 2007; Mintz and Kopelowicz, 2007). Given the link between cognitive functioning and functional outcome, research has begun focusing on developing drugs to improve cognition in schizophrenia patients (Floresco et al., 2005; Green, 1996, 2006).

To address this great ‘unmet therapeutic need’ in schizophrenia, the United States National Institute of Mental Health sponsored several initiatives. These initiatives include: 1) the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) group (Marder, 2006; Marder and Fenton, 2004); 2) the Treatment Units for Research on Neurocognition in Schizophrenia (Buchanan et al., 2007); and 3) the Cognitive Neuroscience Treatment to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia project (Carter and Barch, 2007). The MATRICS group developed a consensus clinical test battery (MCCB) in which positive data for a test compound could be approved as a procognitive treatment in schizophrenia by the Food and Drug Administration. TURNS was designed to select and evaluate potential procognitive candidates in the MCCB across several sites. CNTRICS was and is currently developing novel tasks from the field of cognitive neuroscience to be used in clinical neuroscience. Because these initiatives have focused primarily on assessing cognition in humans, while recognizing the need for animal models (Barch et al., 2009; Floresco et al., 2005; Geyer, 2010; Young et al., 2007; Young et al., 2009), there has been little consensus from a preclinical perspective on developing animal models relevant to schizophrenia.

1.2. Assessing the predictive validity of animal models of cognitive disruption in schizophrenia

One of the greatest difficulties in developing animal models of cognitive disruption in schizophrenia is that no drugs have been approved for treating these symptoms (Floresco et al, 2005; Geyer, 2010). Therefore, assessing the pharmacological predictive validity of an animal model of cognitive disruption in schizophrenia is problematic. The primary treatments for schizophrenia are antipsychotics, which primarily reduce psychotic symptoms. The effects of antipsychotic treatment on cognition continue to be debated. First generation antipsychotics (FGA) share a primary dopamine D2 receptor antagonist mechanism (Richelson and Souder, 2000) and have traditionally been thought to impair cognition in patients with schizophrenia (see review (Cassens et al., 1990). FGA-induced cognitive disruption may have contributed to studies suggesting the superiority of second generation antipsychotics (SGA), which have diverse actions on dopamine D2, 5-HT2A, and other receptors (Richelson and Souder, 2000). While some studies report no effects of FGA or SGA on cognition, (Kunitachi et al., 2009; Nagai et al., 2009; Thomsen et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2007), other clinical trials (Harvey et al., 2003; Harvey et al., 2004; Kern et al., 1998; Kern et al., 1999; Purdon et al., 2001; Velligan et al., 2002; Velligan et al., 2003) and meta-analyses (Harvey and Keefe, 2001; Keefe et al., 1999) reported superiority of SGA over FGA for treating cognitive symptoms in schizophrenia. Lack of cognitive improvement from FGAs could be related to co-administration of anti-cholinergic drugs (Keefe et al., 1999; Paulsen et al., 1995; Spohn and Strauss, 1989), used to counter the extra-pyramidal side-effects of FGA, because cholinergic antagonists can impair cognitive performance (see below). Moreover, it has been suggested that the effects reported in some studies may have been biased by industry support (Heres et al., 2006), or methodological weaknesses (Harvey and Keefe, 2001). Other studies (Crespo-Facorro et al., 2009; Green et al., 2002; Harvey et al., 2005; Keefe et al., 2006; Rollnik et al., 2002) and meta-analyses (Mishara and Goldberg, 2004) have supported similar efficacy for FGA and SGA at improving cognition in schizophrenia. Several large-scale studies have reported the equal efficacy of FGA and SGA for treating cognitive disruption in schizophrenia (Jones et al., 2006; Keefe et al., 2007; Lewis et al., 2006). Several investigators and clinicians have questioned the real-term gains and clinical relevance of these significant effects of FGA and SGA on cognition (2007). For example, FGA and SGA improved patients ability to recall a 12-word list by a only a tenth of a word in these large scale studies (Keefe et al., 2007). Such low effect sizes may have contributed to the lack of FDA approval for these antipsychotics being indicated as procognitive. While basic science studies in animal models related to schizophrenia have assessed the effects of FGA or SGA, rarely have the authors discussed the relevance of the low to moderate effects of these drugs in patients (Martinez and Sarter, 2008). This approach becomes a problem when the animal models show full reversals of cognitive disruptions with antipsychotics – drugs that show minimal improvement in cognitive symptoms in patients. While testing antipsychotics in mouse models of cognitive disruption is a valid approach, ideally the model would better predict the dose effect function for low levels of cognitive enhancement at lower doses of antipsychotics and cognitive-disrupting effects at higher doses (i.e. an inverted U-shaped dose function), as well as the lack of full reversals of cognitive impairment. Models showing low to moderate effects of antipsychotics on cognition may represent a “real life” scenario and enable the evaluation of add-on therapies with putative cognitive enhancers. This review will highlight studies on mouse pharmacological animal models of cognitive disruption in schizophrenia; paying particular attention to differential effects of FGAs and SGAs in the models, as well as when such treatments result in a full reversal of the cognitive deficits in the model. The predictive validity of such models will be evaluated (Geyer, 2006; Meyer et al., 2005; Young et al., 2009) in light of the low to moderate effects of these drugs in patients.

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) constitute another class of drugs that have mixed degrees of efficacy for improving cognition in schizophrenia. Several small-scale, open-label studies reported positive effects of AChEIs on cognition in schizophrenia (Bora et al., 2005; Buchanan et al., 2003; Mendelsohn et al., 2004; Stryjer et al., 2003), supported by some randomized double-blind trials (Buchanan et al., 2008; Schubert et al., 2006). The majority of larger double-blind randomized placebo designs (Chouinard et al., 2007; Fagerlund et al., 2007; Ferreri et al., 2006; Keefe et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2007; Mazeh et al., 2006; Risch et al., 2007; Sacco et al., 2008; Sharma et al., 2006) reported no improvement of cognition in patients with schizophrenia. In a meta-analysis, it was suggested that AChEIs may improve short-term memory and attention in patients with schizophrenia (Ribeiz et al., 2010). Given that a third of the studies in the meta-analysis were from small-scale, open-label trials, useful meta-analysis focused on large double-blind controlled studies would provide greater information on the effects of AChEIs on cognition in patients with schizophrenia. These studies are further complicated by the use of AChEIs as add-ons to FGA and SGA treatment. Further clarity on the effects of AChEIs on cognition in schizophrenia would aid the assessment of animal models of cognitive abnormalities in schizophrenia. In the present review, we will include animal models that have utilized AChEIs to assess the validity of the model. Hence, although the positive predictive validity of an animal model for cognitive deficits in schizophrenia cannot be assessed clearly based on the effects of AChEIs, it is possible to comment on the putative validity of some models. Until the first treatments for cognitive deficits in schizophrenia are developed, nicotine could also be used to assess the predictive validity of animal models because it can improve cognition in normal subjects as well as in patients with schizophrenia (for review see (Levin et al., 2006), especially for attention/vigilance (Smith et al., 2006). Without a clear pharmacological tool to assess positive predictive validity, however, 1) basing the manipulation used in the animal model on clear clinical evidence of pathology (e.g. decreased frontocortical area predicting working memory span capacity deficits in schizophrenia patients (Gutierrez-Galve et al., 2010); or genetic risk, and 2) using tasks with cross-species construct validity (Sarter, 2006) will be crucial to the refinement of animal models of cognitive disruption in schizophrenia (Floresco et al., 2005).

1.3. Rat and mouse models related to schizophrenia: Species differences in pharmacological response?

Previously, we reviewed rat and mouse pharmacological and genetic models of disrupted cognition in schizophrenia with a specific focus on reviewing tasks with putative translational validity for the MCCB (Young et al., 2009). A species disparity is evident in approaches toward developing animal models of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia insofar as few pharmacological models are established for mice while few rat genetic models have been developed. This disparity has been discussed in other reviews of rodent cognitive testing and/or animal models related to schizophrenia (Brigman et al., 2010a; Neill et al., 2010; Robbins, 2002). While it has proven difficult to develop mutant genetic rat models, pharmacological models can be developed readily in either species. Species differences in pharmacological effects indicate that one cannot necessarily predict drug effects in mice based on the rat pharmacological literature (or vice versa), suggesting that more emphasis needs to be placed on understanding the behavioral pharmacology of CNS drugs in mice, particularly for cognition. Mouse pharmacological studies will aid in drug discovery since a combined approach of molecular genetics and pharmacology will likely be required for drug development in schizophrenia. The proportion of one-to-one orthologues within G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) superfamily – which contain many targets for cognitive enhancement in schizophrenia – is only 70% between rat and mouse, with greater similarity between mouse and human (86%) compared to rat and human (79%) (Gloriam et al., 2007). Acknowledging and working around such differences in receptor characteristics between rats and mice would assist in CNS drug discovery (Geerts, 2009). These differences can manifest as different binding affinities, where for example the binding profile of amphetamine is similar in mice and man, but less so when compared to rats (Han and Gu, 2006). The behavioral effects of these differences can also be observed. A widely used cross-species test of sensorimotor gating in schizophrenia is prepulse inhibition (PPI) of startle, where a pulse-induced startle reflex is reduced if preceded immediately by a non-startling pulse (Braff and Geyer, 1990; Graham et al., 1975) . Mice are less sensitive to the PPI-disruptive effect of dopamine D2 receptor agonists than are rats (Ralph-Williams et al., 2003; Ralph-Williams et al., 2002; Ralph and Caine, 2005) while the D1 receptor plays a more important role in the modulation of PPI in mice compared to rats (Halberstadt and Geyer, 2011; Powell et al., 2003). Effects of other neurotransmitter systems on PPI also vary by species. For example, indoleamine hallucinogens such as psilocin and 5-MeO-DMT that act primarily on the serotonergic system increase PPI in mice (Halberstadt and Geyer, 2011) while decreasing PPI in rats (Krebs-Thomson et al., 2006). Further behavioral pharmacological differences are described elsewhere for PPI (Powell et al., 2009); (Halberstadt and Geyer, 2011).

These species differences are less well understood for cognitive tasks pertinent to schizophrenia research, primarily because fewer pharmacological studies have been conducted in mice compared to rats. Thus, the potential pharmacological differences between rats and mice performing cognitive tasks should be considered when generating pharmacological mouse models of cognitive disruption in schizophrenia. For example, subchronic phencyclidine (PCP) administration to rats consistently produces deleterious effects on performance of the attentional set shifting task (ASST) that are specific to the extra-dimensional (ED) shifting stage (Egerton et al., 2005; Goetghebeur and Dias, 2009; Goetghebeur et al., 2010; Rodefer et al., 2005). Subchronic PCP in mice (0.63 and 1.3 mg/kg, 5 days with testing occurring immediately after administration), however, impaired simple discrimination and reversal learning as well as ED shifting (Laurent and Podhorna, 2004). Although the mouse data are confounded by the lack of intradimensional (ID)/ED differences, perhaps because of the limited ID shifts used (see (Young et al., 2009), the differences in ASST performance with subchronic PCP between rats and mice indicate that further effort is required to assess pharmacological effects on mouse cognition. In the present review, we provide an overview of mouse pharmacological models of impaired cognition related to schizophrenia in order to outline what has been done to date and suggest directions for future pharmacological studies in mice.

2. Pharmacological mouse models of cognitive dysfunction in schizophrenia

Psychotomimetic drugs induce hallucinations and psychotic states, and exacerbate symptoms in patients with schizophrenia (Geyer and Vollenweider, 2008; Javitt and Zukin, 1991; Krystal et al., 1994; Malhotra et al., 1997a; Malhotra et al., 1997b). These drugs include dopaminergic agonists (e.g. amphetamine), glutamatergic antagonists (e.g. PCP), and cholinergic antagonists (e.g. scopolamine) and are often used in pharmacological rodent models of schizophrenia. For example, the glutamate hypothesis of schizophrenia is derived from evidence that acute administration of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists, including PCP and ketamine, produces schizophrenia-like symptoms in healthy humans (Javitt, 2004; Javitt and Zukin, 1991). Ketamine has since been used to induce a model of psychosis in normal volunteers (Abel et al., 2003; Krystal et al., 1994; Malhotra et al., 1996; Oranje et al., 2002), and to exacerbate symptoms in patients with schizophrenia (Malhotra et al., 1997a; Malhotra et al., 1997b). While the effects of psychotomimetics described above occur following acute treatment, subchronic or sensitizing regimens of drug treatment are also used to assess behavior after a washout period while drug is not on board, avoiding putative drug by drug interaction confounds (Jentsch et al., 1998; Jentsch and Roth, 1999; Martinez and Sarter, 2008; Neill et al., 2010; Young et al., 2009). Acute, subchronic, chronic, and sensitizing regimens of psychotomimetic administration will be covered below.

2.3. Pharmacologically induced disruption in learning and memory

Several paradigms exist with which to assess learning and memory in mice. Previously we assessed the validity of novel object recognition tasks, the Morris water maze (MWM), and the Barnes maze for assessing this domain in mice (Young et al. 2009). In the present review we will examine pharmacologically induced disruptions in additional tasks that may have some relevance to learning and memory. For example, NMDA antagonists have been evaluated in tests of step down latency (long-term fear-related memory), as well as spatial and non-spatial object recognition (short- and long-term memory). Acute administration of the non-competitive NMDA receptor antagonist MK-801 (0.25 mg/kg) to mice impaired their ability to remember to refrain from stepping down from a platform onto a grid that had delivered a shock 24 hrs previously (Dall'Igna et al., 2003; de Oliveira et al., 2005). MK-801-induced hyperactivity at this dose may have confounded the step-down behavior of these mice, although these behaviors may be dissociable because chronic caffeine treatment (1 mg/ml in drinking water for 7 days) reversed the hyperlocomotor but not step-down latency (memory) effects of MK-801 (Dall'Igna et al., 2003). When administered at lower doses in another study however, MK-801-induced (0.01 mg/kg) disruption in step-down latencies was also attenuated with subchronic caffeine treatment (de Oliveira et al., 2005), complicating whether these activity/memory effects are dissociable. Further details are required to specifically address the dissociation of drug-induced effects on activity and memory in this paradigm.

Mandillo et al (2003) examined the effects of subchronic (5 days) MK-801 treatment (0.3 and 0.6 mg/kg) in a novel task designed to assess both spatial and non-spatial object recognition. Consistent with subchronic PCP (5 and 10 mg/kg) and amphetamine (2.5 and 5 mg/kg), MK-801 impaired object recognition during a spatial, but not non-spatial challenge (Mandillo et al., 2003). The effects of these drugs were assessed the day after treatment cessation; hence it is unclear whether these effects on spatial memory were due to the animals going through withdrawal or a fundamental change in their cognitive capabilities induced by the drug. Another novel task to assess the effects of subchronic PCP (3 mg/kg on days 1-5, and 8-12 with a 3-day washout period) on spatial recognition memory was used by Thomsen et al. (2009). Subchronic PCP treatment impaired spatial recognition memory as measured by increased time spent in a previously unvisited arm with 0 min between forced sample arm and choice of arms. This effect was reversed by the novel α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) partial agonist (SSR 180711) and attenuated by the antipsychotics clozapine and haloperidol (Thomsen et al., 2009). While additional dose-response studies may be needed to further validate this novel task and replicate these findings, the data from this study are compelling.

Two laboratories have demonstrated on several occasions that non-spatial long-term (24 hr) object recognition performance was impaired following subchronic PCP (10 mg/kg for 10-14 days) administration in mice even after a 3-day washout period (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Kunitachi et al., 2009; Nagai et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2007). This subchronic PCP-induced deficit in performance was reversed via several mechanisms including treatment with the SGA aripiprazole but not the FGA haloperidol (Nagai et al., 2009), and the AChEI donepezil but not physostigmine (Kunitachi et al., 2009). Interestingly, a sigma-1 receptor agonist (SA4503) (Hashimoto et al., 2007) also reversed the subchronic PCP-induced deficit, while the sigma-1 receptor antagonist NE-100 blocked donepezil-induced improvement (Kunitachi et al., 2009). This administration regimen also impaired long-term (24 hr) spatial memory for a single location, which was subsequently reversed by treatment with the AChEI galantamine and SGA risperidone, both of which were blocked by the dopamine D1 receptor antagonist SCH23390 (Wang et al., 2007). Interestingly SCH23390 and the serotonin 5-HT1A receptor antagonist WAY100635 blocked aripiprazole-induced reversal of the long-term memory deficit, but the dopamine D2 receptor antagonist raclopride did not (Nagai et al., 2009). Thus, dopamine D1 and serotonin 5-HT1A receptors may contribute to antipsychotic- and or AChEI-induced reversal of PCP-induced impairment of 24 hr single item memory, while sigma-receptors may be important for AChEI treatment effects. Given that direct activation of sigma receptors also reversed this PCP-induced deficit, donepezil may be acting via this receptor. Evidence for direct cholinergic agonist-induced improvement in long-term memory also exists, via the α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (Hashimoto et al., 2006). One problem with the interpretation of these studies however, is that neither the vehicle- nor PCP-treated mice in exhibited a preference (thus memory) for the novel object in several studies when compared with chance. Thus, with no evidence of a memory trace, it is unclear what the cognitive relevance would be of a significant difference between subchronic PCP and vehicle treated mice. As discussed previously, neither risperidone nor AChEIs fully reverse memory deficits in schizophrenia, raising the possibility that these models may produce false positive results. The discrepancy between these preclinical data and the clinical data could exist however, because the novel object recognition paradigm utilized may not be assessing the same aspect of memory that is assessed in patients with schizophrenia (see below). Alternatively, the possibility remains that floor and/or ceiling effects may limit the opportunity to observe modest improvements in performance. The difference of FGA- and SGA-induced effects could reflect doses used, because low doses may be more efficacious for improving cognitive symptoms in patients with schizophrenia (Green et al., 2002). That said, the data on subchronic PCP administration and object recognition deficits in mice are promising by virtue of the number and consistency of observed effects.

Subchronic methamphetamine administration (1 mg/kg, 7 days with a 7-day washout period) also impaired 24 hr delay long-term object recognition memory. This effect has so far been reversed by the SGA clozapine (Kamei et al., 2006), minocycline (Mizoguchi et al., 2008), the AChEI galantamine (Noda et al., 2010), and the γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-A agonist baclofen (Arai et al., 2009), but not the FGA haloperidol (Kamei et al., 2006). In these studies, the vehicle-treated mice generally exhibited a preference for the novel object (suggestive of a memory for the familiar object) thus the methamphetamine-induced disruption in memory represents a genuine shift in behavior.

Scopolamine-induced disruption in cognition has primarily been utilized in the past as an animal model of Alzheimer's disease. Schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease exhibit impaired cognition in overlapping domains, such as attention, memory, and executive functioning. In contrast with some PCP and methamphetamine models, acute administration is normally used in studies using scopolamine. Acute scopolamine (0.3 – 3.0 mg/kg) impaired novel object recognition (3 hr delay) performance in Swiss mice (Dodart et al., 1997). Because methylbromide scopolamine (which does not exert CNS effects due to its blood brain barrier impermeability) did not affect novel object recognition performance (Dodart et al., 1997), it is likely that scopolamine-induced deficits were mediated centrally. Scopolamine- (0.63 mg/kg) induced deficits in novel object recognition performance (30 min delay) was attenuated with galantamine (10 mg/kg) treatment (de Bruin and Pouzet, 2006). Reversal of a scopolamine- (2 mg/kg) induced deficit in short- and long-term memory assessed in the novel object recognition task (1.5 and 24 hr delay) has also been observed with caffeine (10 mg/kg) pretreatment (Botton et al., 2010). The predictive validity of scopolamine-induced deficits in this task as an animal model of schizophrenia is complex. While galantamine – and caffeine – do not necessarily improve cognition in schizophrenia, the former has been used only as an add-on therapy to FGA or SGAs. Thus, to fully explore this model, combining scopolamine with FGA or SGAs to impair novel object performance then reassessing galantamine or caffeine effects may provide a more complete model of a putative adjunctive treatment study.

While novel object recognition testing is common in part because of its rapidity of use, there are a number of potential difficulties in the interpretation of data that can limit the predictive validity of study results. As discussed here and elsewhere, novel object recognition is of course likely to assess short- (Mori et al., 2011; Niimi et al., 2008) or long-term memory (Hashimoto et al., 2007; Kunitachi et al., 2009; Nagai et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2007) depending upon the delay utilized in the protocol. Because of the possible contribution of other cognitive processes to performance however, researchers have suggested that novel object recognition specifically measures such processes, e.g. attention (Chuhan and Taukulis, 2006; Dere et al., 2008; Silvers et al., 2007), working memory (Benice and Raber, 2009; Yamada et al., 2011), episodic memory (Idris et al., 2010; McLean et al., 2010), and learning (Mori et al., 2011; Yamada et al., 2011). Thus, putting drug study results into context for human cognitive testing has been difficult and do not readily occur in other tasks such as the ASST or 5-choice serial reaction-time task (5CSRTT) discussed below that have greater established validity for specific cognitive domains (Young et al, 2009). The cause of the uncertainty over the exact cognitive process being measured may be the lack of goal-directed behavior of the animals, which is in contrast with the ASST and 5CSRTT. Although object (shape) recognition tasks exist in human procedures which require the recognition of shapes as being novel or familiar - and for which patients with schizophrenia exhibit deficits (Bozikas et al., 2006) - these human tasks have explicit instructions and thus the motivation for recognizing novel shapes is specifiable. Recognition of novel objects in the rodent version of the task is inferred by the animal spontaneously engaging with the novel object but there is no specifiable motivation for the animal to do so. The behavior is viewed as innate, thus changes to this behavior could indeed reflect memory or changes to that innate preference. Hence, pharmacological manipulations may in fact alter this spontaneous novelty preference of the animal as much as its memory for familiar objects, possibly confounding the interpretation of the data (Young et al., 2009). Nevertheless, such concerns can be addressed in novelty recognition tasks by including shorter delays, at which the animals demonstrate intact novelty preference. With this control, an impairment at longer delays can be interpreted more confidently as being due to the delay and indicative of impaired memory (King et al., 2004; Wietrzych et al., 2005). Unfortunately few studies – and none reported here – incorporate such a control to confirm the delay-dependency of the effect. Future studies investigating animal models with relevance to schizophrenia using novelty recognition tasks would benefit from incorporating multiple measurements across different delay intervals.

Another task of learning and memory is the MWM. In the MWM, animals are in pool of opaque water with only one escape – a platform located just below the surface of the water. The MWM is therefore an aversively (stress) motivated spatial learning and memory task. While the MWM has several possible confounds to interpreting data including thigmotaxis (swimming near the wall) and floating behaviors (hence the need to measure path length to finding the platform as well as latency (D'Hooge and De Deyn, 2001), it has been used extensively to assess spatial learning and memory in mutant mouse models related to schizophrenia (Young et al., 2009). Fewer studies have been performed examining pharmacological challenges, however. Subchronic PCP treatment (0.5 mg/kg for 12 days) of mice in the MWM impaired spatial learning at a dose that did not affect swimming performance (although 2 and 4 mg/kg treatment did affect swimming; (Beraki et al., 2008). Training in the MWM occurred during the final 4 days of treatment; hence performance may have been confounded by acute effects of PCP as well as withdrawal during probe sessions. Repeated clozapine treatment blocked the PCP-induced impairment, while haloperidol did not (Beraki et al., 2008). In a separate study, subchronic PCP (0.5-2 mg/kg for 7 days) impaired learning the MWM 24 hour after PCP cessation (Beraki et al., 2009). This effect of PCP was measured as altered latencies to find the platform, however, while the path length taken by the mice did not differ. Given that 2 mg/kg adversely affected swimming performance (Beraki et al., 2008), it is possible that the increased latency was due to floating behaviors rather than impaired memory. There are now several human virtual reality versions of the MWM in which patients with schizophrenia have been tested (Folley et al., 2010; Weniger and Irle, 2008). To date the efficacy of SGA and FGA on improving performance in patients with schizophrenia have yet to be compared in such a paradigm, but such a study could prove very useful in assessing the predictive validity of the PCP/MWM model described above.

2.4. Pharmacologically induced disruption in executive functioning and attention

Many cognitive deficits apparent in patients with schizophrenia appear to be largely frontally mediated (working memory, attention, executive functioning, speed of processing), but object recognition (Yee, 2000) and MWM (de Bruin et al., 1994) performance are not frontally mediated ((Barker et al., 2007; Hannesson et al., 2004a; Hannesson et al., 2004b) but rather involve the hippocampus and peri-rhinal cortex. For example, long- (24 hr) but not short- (5 min) term memory assessed in mice using the novel object recognition task requires a functioning hippocampus (CA1 region; (Hammond et al., 2004). Peri-post-rhinal lesions impacted both long- (24 hr) and short-term (15 min) memory, although hippocampal lesions did not affect long-term memory in rats in this task (Winters et al., 2004). Lesion studies have determined that the hippocampus (Gerlai et al., 2002; Morris et al., 1982), habenula (Lecourtier et al., 2004), and fimbria-fornix (Liu and Bilkey, 2002) contribute to learning in the MWM.

There have been few pharmacological studies in mice in tasks that are putatively frontally mediated. As described above, Laurent and Podhorna (2004) assessed the effects of subchronic PCP (0.63 and 1.3 mg/kg, 5 days with testing occurring immediately after administration) in mice on the ASST. The ED shift and reversal learning components of the mouse ASST require the medial prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortices, respectively (Bissonette et al., 2008). The ASST procedure employed by the two groups differed however as Laurent and Podhorna, (2004) used only one ID shift while Bissonette et al (2008) used four, with the latter demonstrating an ID/ED shift indicating an attentional set was formed, although ID/ED shifts can be observed with one ID shift (DeSteno and Schmauss, 2008; Young et al., 2010). The lack of ID/ED shift would suggest that the PCP-induced impaired ED shifting, simple discrimination, and reversal learning in mice observed by Laurent and Podhorna (2004) may not reflect set-shifting deficits in patients with schizophrenia (Young et al., 2009), or consistency with reports on PCP-induced ED shifting deficits in rats (Egerton et al., 2005; Goetghebeur and Dias, 2009; Goetghebeur et al., 2010; Rodefer et al., 2005). While mice readily dig in bowls for a reward (as in the ASST), mice can also use visual cues and a touch-screen apparatus to perform reversal learning tasks (Bussey et al., 2001; Izquierdo et al., 2006), although ASST using this apparatus has not been successful to date (Brigman et al., 2005). Subchronic PCP (5 mg/kg twice daily for seven days with a 7-day washout period) did not affect reversal learning in this visual touch-screen paradigm (Brigman et al., 2009), which is consistent with several rat ASST studies in which no deficits in reversal learning were observed following PCP (Egerton et al., 2005; Goetghebeur and Dias, 2009; Goetghebeur et al., 2010; Rodefer et al., 2005). Reversal learning can be modulated in mice in the visual touchscreen via pharmacological or genetic inactivation of the serotonin transporter (Brigman et al., 2010b), suggesting that this assay is sensitive to detect experimental manipulations. Thus, more work is required to assess the effects of subchronic PCP in reversal learning paradigms in mice. Acute MK-801 (0.05 and 0.1 mg/kg) administration to mice impaired spatial reversal learning in a water T-maze, where the location of the escape platform was relocated to the other arm after the location was learned initially. MK-801-induced disruption of performance was reversed by the AChEIs physostigmine and donepezil, but not galantamine (Csernansky et al., 2005). These findings may relate to the primary action of physostigmine and donepezil as AChEIs because some studies suggest galantamine primarily acts as a direct nAChR agonist (Wilkinson et al., 2004). As described above, more information on the effects of FGA or SGAs on the AChEI-induced reversal of this MK-801-induced deficit would be required to fully explore this as an animal model of schizophrenia. Other tasks can be utilized to investigate NMDA-induced disruption of reversal learning including the serial reversal learning paradigm (Dickson et al., 2010).

In the 5CSRTT which assesses sustained attention (Carli et al., 1983; Humby et al., 1999), acute doses of PCP disrupted the performance of C57BL/6N (3 mg/kg) and DBA/2 (1.5 mg/kg) mice (Greco et al., 2005). The multivariate approach to measuring 5CSRTT performance enables the interpretation of pharmacologically induced changes in performance beyond that of altered attention however (Robbins, 2002). This PCP-induced impairment may have been driven by a general disruption of responding not specific to attentional processes, because premature and time-out responses were also affected. This PCP-induced effect was attenuated by administration of the metabotropic glutamate 2/3 agonist LY379268 (Greco et al., 2005), a current target for treating positive symptoms and cognitive disruption in schizophrenia (Patil et al., 2007). Acute amphetamine (1 mg/kg) also increased premature responding in C57BL/6J but not DBA/2J mice, and did not disrupt accuracy, omissions, or mean correct response latencies in either strain (Loos et al., 2010). Acute scopolamine (0.02 - 2 mg/kg) impaired attention in several strains of mice (C57BL/6, DBA/2, 129/Sv, as well as C57BL/X129/Sv and C57BL/6XDBA/2 hybrids) in the 5CSRTT (de Bruin et al., 2006; Humby et al., 1999; Pattij et al., 2007). Scopolamine reduced accuracy, increased response latencies, premature responses, and omissions in second generation C57BL/6X129/Sv hybrid mice at doses as low as 0.08 mg/kg (de Bruin et al., 2006). Not all strains were identical in effect however, for example DBA/2 mice were hypersensitive to scopolamine-induced disruption in accuracy (affected at 0.1 mg/kg unlike C57BL/6 or 129/Sv mice) but their omission levels were unaffected (again unlike C57BL/6 or 129/Sv mice (Pattij et al., 2007). C57BL/6XDBA/2 hybrids were more sensitive to the scopolamine-induced detrimental effects of accuracy and omissions when compared with C57BL/6X129/Sv mice (Humby et al., 1999). These studies support evidence that DBA/2 mice may be an interesting strain to study in terms of poor cholinergic regulation for schizophrenia research (Singer et al., 2009; Stevens et al., 1996). Moreover, these studies support the notion that cholinergic antagonist-induced disruption of cognition may still be an appropriate model for deficits in schizophrenia (Friedman, 2004; Lieberman et al., 2008; Martin et al., 2004; Scarr and Dean, 2008; Terry, 2008). Interestingly, acute scopolamine (0.075 mg/kg) treatment to rats reduced accuracy and increased omissions, but did not affect premature responses or response latencies (Waters et al., 2005), although older rats exhibited slower latencies with scopolamine (0.03 and 0.075 mg/kg; (Jones et al., 1995). In another study, PCP (1 – 3 mg/kg) affected all these measures in rats but also increased premature responding (Le Pen et al., 2003). Thus, while there are similarities between mouse and rat studies in the 5CSRTT, there are as many differences between the two species as within rat studies to date. In mice, the acute scopolamine-induced deficit in 5CSRTT performance was similar with that of PCP-induced deficit in terms of generalized disruption in performance rather than a specific effect on accuracy or omissions. Acute amphetamine selectively increased premature responding only. Thus, there have yet to be examples of pharmacological manipulations that have selectively impaired attentional measures in mice in the 5CSRTT with relevance to schizophrenia.

3. Discussion

There have been great strides accomplished in developing genetic mouse (Arguello and Gogos, 2010) and rat pharmacological models of cognitive disruption in schizophrenia (Young et al., 2009). Our understanding of mouse pharmacological models is far more limited, however (Brigman et al., 2010a). As reviewed here, although the number of studies in mice assessing pharmacological disruptions and improvements in tasks such as novel object recognition, MWM, reversal learning, and the 5CSRTT is increasing, more work needs to be done to further explore and validate these models. While it is tempting to assume there will be consistency between rats and mice in drug effects, the pharmacological and genetic differences between rats and mice in other behaviors such as PPI (described above; (Geerts, 2009; Gloriam et al., 2007; Halberstadt and Geyer, 2011; Powell et al., 2009) suggest that we should be cautious with such assumptions. Thus, there is a need to understand the behavioral effects of drug manipulations in mice that produce neuropathological abnormalities consistent with schizophrenia (Behrens et al., 2008). Such knowledge will prove useful if future mouse models with susceptibility genes are combined with pharmacological or developmental models relevant to schizophrenia.

5.2 Future directions for mouse pharmacological models

In this review we describe various studies examining mouse pharmacological models of cognitive dysfunction in schizophrenia. The majority of these studies investigated the domain of visual learning and memory and assessing putative treatment effects, while there have been few studies examining the attention, reasoning and problem solving, or speed of processing domains identified by MATRICS as being impacted in schizophrenia. The procognitive efficacy of some drugs to treat these domains have been tested extensively in patients and to date have not resulted in approved medications and have yielded only low to moderate effects at best, e.g. antipsychotics at doses required to treat positive symptoms (Keefe et al., 2007; Mintz and Kopelowicz, 2007) and AChEIs as adjunctive therapy to antipsychotics (Chouinard et al., 2007; Fagerlund et al., 2007; Ferreri et al., 2006; Keefe et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2007; Mazeh et al., 2006; Risch et al., 2007; Sacco et al., 2008; Sharma et al., 2006). While we cannot assess the pharmacological predictive validity of a model directly given that no drugs have been approved for the procognitive treatment of schizophrenia, we have identified where several of these animal models were successfully treated with antipsychotic and AChEI administration (Kunitachi et al., 2009; Nagai et al., 2009; Thomsen et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2007). As discussed above, the procognitive efficacy of FGA, SGA, and AChEI drugs have been reported as weak at best. Ideally, an animal model of cognitive disruption in schizophrenia would model these weak effects, providing an opportunity for adjunctive therapies to be tested. While demonstrating weak procognitive effects of these drugs while assessing adjunctive would require large sample sizes, such studies are possible at least in rats (Horiguchi et al., 2011). From a practical viewpoint these studies may require too much effort when simply examining a mechanism of action in an animal model, but perhaps before a drug is moved into preclinical testing such larger scale studies should be completed. Thus, for many of the pharmacological mouse models described here with SGA- and AChEI-induced full reversal of cognitive deficits, further investigation is required if they are to be used to screen for procognitive drugs. Investing time and money into more complete preclinical models may offset the large cost of clinical trials to test treatment efficacy (Nolen et al., 2007).

It is important to note that animal models of cognitive disruption in schizophrenia are produced by 1) the measure (i.e. performance of a cognitive task) and 2) the manipulation (i.e. administration of drug to impair performance). The greater the cross-species translational validity the cognitive task has for measuring that domain in patients (e.g. construct validity), the higher the chances that the pharmacological effects observed in animal models will translate across species (Floresco et al., 2005; Moore, 2010; Sarter, 2004, 2006; Young et al., 2009). Moreover, the greater the validity the manipulation has to what causes impaired cognition in patients, again the higher the chances that the effects of a model will be consistent with patients with schizophrenia (Geyer and Markou, 2002; Markou et al., 2008; Moore, 2010; Young et al., 2009). Therefore, the procognitive effects of SGA and AChEIs described above could be due in part to the limited translational validity of the task (e.g. novel object recognition testing) for assessing memory as occurs in patients (Floresco et al., 2005; Moore, 2010; Sarter, 2004; Young et al., 2009). Thus, developing and validating mouse tasks with cross-species translational validity should be a priority (Moore). As mentioned previously, nicotine may be a useful tool with which to assess the predictive validity of animal models to detect improvements in cognition in normal subjects (for review see (Levin et al., 2006), and in patients with schizophrenia (Radek et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2006).

One further consideration is that a true model for cognitive disruption in schizophrenia should include treatment with a dopamine D2 receptor antagonist since it is extremely likely that cognitive treatment will be an add-on therapy to current antipsychotic medications (Buchanan et al., 2005; Marder, 2006; Young et al., 2009). Such an inclusion of models assessing add-on therapies, in addition to combining genetic and pharmacological insults, may prove more fruitful for future tests of cognition enhancement in mice. Although a daunting experimental prospect, for applicability to the heterogeneous group of schizophrenia disorders, such studies may well be required in the future.

  • Reviews mouse pharmacological models pertinent to cognitive disruption in schizophrenia

  • Assesses the validity of such mouse models

  • Discusses the limitations of assuming pharmacology in mice will be consistent with rats

  • Offers future directions for validation and combined genetic/pharmacological models

4. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ms. Jessica M Meves for her assistance as well as to the reviewer's for their helpful comments. These studies were supported by NIH grants R01 MH052885, R21-MH091571, and R01-MH091407, as well as by the Veteran's Administration VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

5. References

  1. Abel KM, Allin MP, Hemsley DR, Geyer MA. Low dose ketamine increases prepulse inhibition in healthy men. Neuropharmacology. 2003;44:729–737. doi: 10.1016/s0028-3908(03)00073-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andreasen NC, Flaum M, Schultz S, Duzyurek S, Miller D. Diagnosis, methodology and subtypes of schizophrenia. Neuropsychobiology. 1997;35:61–63. doi: 10.1159/000119390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arai S, Takuma K, Mizoguchi H, Ibi D, Nagai T, Kamei H, Kim HC, Yamada K. GABAB receptor agonist baclofen improves methamphetamine-induced cognitive deficit in mice. Eur J Pharmacol. 2009;602:101–104. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2008.10.065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arguello PA, Gogos JA. Cognition in mouse models of schizophrenia susceptibility genes. Schizophr Bull. 2010;36:289–300. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbp153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barch DM, Carter CS, Arnsten A, Buchanan RW, Cohen JD, Geyer M, Green MF, Krystal JH, Nuechterlein K, Robbins T, Silverstein S, Smith EE, Strauss M, Wykes T, Heinssen R. Selecting paradigms from cognitive neuroscience for translation into use in clinical trials: proceedings of the third CNTRICS meeting. Schizophr Bull. 2009;35:109–114. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbn163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barker GR, Bird F, Alexander V, Warburton EC. Recognition memory for objects, place, and temporal order: a disconnection analysis of the role of the medial prefrontal cortex and perirhinal cortex. J Neurosci. 2007;27:2948–2957. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5289-06.2007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Behrens MM, Ali SS, Dugan LL. Interleukin-6 mediates the increase in NADPH-oxidase in the ketamine model of schizophrenia. J Neurosci. 2008;28:13957–13966. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4457-08.2008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Benice TS, Raber J. Dihydrotestosterone modulates spatial working-memory performance in male mice. J Neurochem. 2009;110:902–911. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2009.06183.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Beraki S, Diaz-Heijtz R, Tai F, Ogren SO. Effects of repeated treatment of phencyclidine on cognition and gene expression in C57BL/6 mice. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2009;12:243–255. doi: 10.1017/S1461145708009152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Beraki S, Kuzmin A, Tai F, Ogren SO. Repeated low dose of phencyclidine administration impairs spatial learning in mice: blockade by clozapine but not by haloperidol. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2008;18:486–497. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2007.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bissonette GB, Martins GJ, Franz TM, Harper ES, Schoenbaum G, Powell EM. Double dissociation of the effects of medial and orbital prefrontal cortical lesions on attentional and affective shifts in mice. J Neurosci. 2008;28:11124–11130. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2820-08.2008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bora E, Veznedaroglu B, Kayahan B. The effect of galantamine added to clozapine on cognition of five patients with schizophrenia. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2005;28:139–141. doi: 10.1097/01.wnf.0000162555.68729.04. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Botton PH, Costa MS, Ardais AP, Mioranzza S, Souza DO, da Rocha JB, Porciuncula LO. Caffeine prevents disruption of memory consolidation in the inhibitory avoidance and novel object recognition tasks by scopolamine in adult mice. Behav Brain Res. 2010;214:254–259. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2010.05.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bozikas VP, Kosmidis MH, Kiosseoglou G, Karavatos A. Neuropsychological profile of cognitively impaired patients with schizophrenia. Compr Psychiatry. 2006;47:136–143. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2005.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Braff DL, Geyer MA. Sensorimotor gating and schizophrenia. Human and animal model studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1990;47:181–188. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1990.01810140081011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Brigman JL, Bussey TJ, Saksida LM, Rothblat LA. Discrimination of multidimensional visual stimuli by mice: intra- and extradimensional shifts. Behav Neurosci. 2005;119:839–842. doi: 10.1037/0735-7044.119.3.839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Brigman JL, Graybeal C, Holmes A. Predictably irrational: assaying cognitive inflexibility in mouse models of schizophrenia. Front Neurosci. 2010a;4 doi: 10.3389/neuro.01.013.2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Brigman JL, Ihne J, Saksida LM, Bussey TJ, Holmes A. Effects of Subchronic Phencyclidine (PCP) Treatment on Social Behaviors, and Operant Discrimination and Reversal Learning in C57BL/6J Mice. Front Behav Neurosci. 2009;3:2. doi: 10.3389/neuro.08.002.2009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Brigman JL, Mathur P, Harvey-White J, Izquierdo A, Saksida LM, Bussey TJ, Fox S, Deneris E, Murphy DL, Holmes A. Pharmacological or genetic inactivation of the serotonin transporter improves reversal learning in mice. Cereb Cortex. 2010b;20:1955–1963. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhp266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Buchanan RW, Conley RR, Dickinson D, Ball MP, Feldman S, Gold JM, McMahon RP. Galantamine for the treatment of cognitive impairments in people with schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165:82–89. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07050724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Buchanan RW, Davis M, Goff D, Green MF, Keefe RS, Leon AC, Nuechterlein KH, Laughren T, Levin R, Stover E, Fenton W, Marder SR. A summary of the FDA-NIMH-MATRICS workshop on clinical trial design for neurocognitive drugs for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2005;31:5–19. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbi020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Buchanan RW, Freedman R, Javitt DC, Abi-Dargham A, Lieberman JA. Recent advances in the development of novel pharmacological agents for the treatment of cognitive impairments in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2007;33:1120–1130. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbm083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Buchanan RW, Summerfelt A, Tek C, Gold J. An open-labeled trial of adjunctive donepezil for cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2003;59:29–33. doi: 10.1016/s0920-9964(01)00387-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Bussey TJ, Saksida LM, Rothblat LA. Discrimination of computer-graphic stimuli by mice: a method for the behavioral characterization of transgenic and gene-knockout models. Behav Neurosci. 2001;115:957–960. doi: 10.1037//0735-7044.115.4.957. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Cannon M, Jones P. Schizophrenia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996;60:604–613. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.60.6.604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Carli M, Robbins TW, Evenden JL, Everitt BJ. Effects of lesions to ascending noradrenergic neurones on performance of a 5-choice serial reaction task in rats; implications for theories of dorsal noradrenergic bundle function based on selective attention and arousal. Behav Brain Res. 1983;9:361–380. doi: 10.1016/0166-4328(83)90138-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Carter CS. Applying new approaches from cognitive neuroscience to enhance drug development for the treatment of impaired cognition in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2005;31:810–815. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbi046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Carter CS, Barch DM. Cognitive neuroscience-based approaches to measuring and improving treatment effects on cognition in schizophrenia: the CNTRICS initiative. Schizophr Bull. 2007;33:1131–1137. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbm081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Cassens G, Inglis AK, Appelbaum PS, Gutheil TG. Neuroleptics: effects on neuropsychological function in chronic schizophrenic patients. Schizophr Bull. 1990;16:477–499. doi: 10.1093/schbul/16.3.477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Chouinard S, Stip E, Poulin J, Melun JP, Godbout R, Guillem F, Cohen H. Rivastigmine treatment as an add-on to antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia and cognitive deficits. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:575–583. doi: 10.1185/030079906X167372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Chuhan YS, Taukulis HK. Impairment of single-trial memory formation by oral methylphenidate in the rat. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2006;85:125–131. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2005.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Crespo-Facorro B, Rodriguez-Sanchez JM, Perez-Iglesias R, Mata I, Ayesa R, Ramirez-Bonilla M, Martinez-Garcia O, Vazquez-Barquero JL. Neurocognitive effectiveness of haloperidol, risperidone, and olanzapine in first-episode psychosis: a randomized, controlled 1-year follow-up comparison. J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;70:717–729. doi: 10.4088/JCP.08m04634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Csernansky JG, Martin M, Shah R, Bertchume A, Colvin J, Dong H. Cholinesterase inhibitors ameliorate behavioral deficits induced by MK-801 in mice. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30:2135–2143. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. D'Hooge R, De Deyn PP. Applications of the Morris water maze in the study of learning and memory. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2001;36:60–90. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0173(01)00067-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Dall'Igna OP, Da Silva AL, Dietrich MO, Hoffmann A, de Oliveira RV, Souza DO, Lara DR. Chronic treatment with caffeine blunts the hyperlocomotor but not cognitive effects of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist MK-801 in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003;166:258–263. doi: 10.1007/s00213-002-1362-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. de Bruin JP, Sanchez-Santed F, Heinsbroek RP, Donker A, Postmes P. A behavioural analysis of rats with damage to the medial prefrontal cortex using the Morris water maze: evidence for behavioural flexibility, but not for impaired spatial navigation. Brain Res. 1994;652:323–333. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(94)90243-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. de Bruin N, Pouzet B. Beneficial effects of galantamine on performance in the object recognition task in Swiss mice: deficits induced by scopolamine and by prolonging the retention interval. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2006;85:253–260. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2006.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. de Bruin NM, Fransen F, Duytschaever H, Grantham C, Megens AA. Attentional performance of (C57BL/6Jx129Sv)F2 mice in the five-choice serial reaction time task. Physiol Behav. 2006;89:692–703. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.08.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. de Oliveira RV, Dall'Igna OP, Tort AB, Schuh JF, Neto PF, Santos Gomes MW, Souza DO, Lara DR. Effect of subchronic caffeine treatment on MK-801-induced changes in locomotion, cognition and ataxia in mice. Behav Pharmacol. 2005;16:79–84. doi: 10.1097/00008877-200503000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Dere E, Zheng-Fischhofer Q, Viggiano D, Gironi Carnevale UA, Ruocco LA, Zlomuzica A, Schnichels M, Willecke K, Huston JP, Sadile AG. Connexin31.1 deficiency in the mouse impairs object memory and modulates open-field exploration, acetylcholine esterase levels in the striatum, and cAMP response element-binding protein levels in the striatum and piriform cortex. Neuroscience. 2008;153:396–405. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.01.077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. DeSteno DA, Schmauss C. Induction of early growth response gene 2 expression in the forebrain of mice performing an attention-set-shifting task. Neuroscience. 2008;152:417–428. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.01.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Dickson PE, Rogers TD, Del Mar N, Martin LA, Heck D, Blaha CD, Goldowitz D, Mittleman G. Behavioral flexibility in a mouse model of developmental cerebellar Purkinje cell loss. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2010;94:220–228. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2010.05.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Dodart JC, Mathis C, Ungerer A. Scopolamine-induced deficits in a two-trial object recognition task in mice. Neuroreport. 1997;8:1173–1178. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199703240-00023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Egerton A, Reid L, McKerchar CE, Morris BJ, Pratt JA. Impairment in perceptual attentional set-shifting following PCP administration: a rodent model of set-shifting deficits in schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2005;179:77–84. doi: 10.1007/s00213-004-2109-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Fagerlund B, Soholm B, Fink-Jensen A, Lublin H, Glenthoj BY. Effects of donepezil adjunctive treatment to ziprasidone on cognitive deficits in schizophrenia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2007;30:3–12. doi: 10.1097/01.WNF.0000240940.67241.F6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Ferreri F, Agbokou C, Gauthier S. Cognitive dysfunctions in schizophrenia: potential benefits of cholinesterase inhibitor adjunctive therapy. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2006;31:369–376. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Floresco SB, Geyer MA, Gold LH, Grace AA. Developing predictive animal models and establishing a preclinical trials network for assessing treatment effects on cognition in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2005;31:888–894. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbi041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Folley BS, Astur R, Jagannathan K, Calhoun VD, Pearlson GD. Anomalous neural circuit function in schizophrenia during a virtual Morris water task. Neuroimage. 2010;49:3373–3384. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Friedman JI. Cholinergic targets for cognitive enhancement in schizophrenia: focus on cholinesterase inhibitors and muscarinic agonists. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2004;174:45–53. doi: 10.1007/s00213-004-1794-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Geerts H. Of mice and men: bridging the translational disconnect in CNS drug discovery. CNS Drugs. 2009;23:915–926. doi: 10.2165/11310890-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Gerlai RT, McNamara A, Williams S, Phillips HS. Hippocampal dysfunction and behavioral deficit in the water maze in mice: an unresolved issue? Brain Res Bull. 2002;57:3–9. doi: 10.1016/s0361-9230(01)00630-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Geyer MA. Are cross-species measures of sensorimotor gating useful for the discovery of procognitive cotreatments for schizophrenia? Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2006;8:9–16. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2006.8.1/mgeyer. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Geyer MA. New opportunities in the treatment of cognitive impairments associated with schizophrenia. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences. 2010;19:264–269. [Google Scholar]
  54. Geyer MA, Markou A. The role of preclinical models in the development of psychotropic drugs. In: Davis KL, Charney D, Coyle JT, Nemeroff C, editors. Neuropsychopharmacology: The Fifth Generation of Progress. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Philadelphia: 2002. pp. 445–455. [Google Scholar]
  55. Geyer MA, Vollenweider FX. Serotonin research: contributions to understanding psychoses. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2008 doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2008.06.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Gloriam DE, Fredriksson R, Schioth HB. The G protein-coupled receptor subset of the rat genome. BMC Genomics. 2007;8:338. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-8-338. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Goetghebeur P, Dias R. Comparison of haloperidol, risperidone, sertindole, and modafinil to reverse an attentional set-shifting impairment following subchronic PCP administration in the rat--a back translational study. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2009;202:287–293. doi: 10.1007/s00213-008-1132-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Goetghebeur PJ, Lerdrup L, Sylvest A, Dias R. Erythropoietin reverses the attentional set-shifting impairment in a rodent schizophrenia disease-like model. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2010 doi: 10.1007/s00213-010-1990-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Graham FK, Putnam LE, Leavitt LA. Lead-stimulation effects of human cardiac orienting and blink reflexes. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1975;104:175–182. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Greco B, Invernizzi RW, Carli M. Phencyclidine-induced impairment in attention and response control depends on the background genotype of mice: reversal by the mGLU(2/3) receptor agonist LY379268. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2005;179:68–76. doi: 10.1007/s00213-004-2127-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Green MF. What are the functional consequences of neurocognitive deficits in schizophrenia? Am J Psychiatry. 1996;153:321–330. doi: 10.1176/ajp.153.3.321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Green MF. Cognitive impairment and functional outcome in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67(Suppl 9):3–8. discussion 36-42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Green MF, Marder SR, Glynn SM, McGurk SR, Wirshing WC, Wirshing DA, Liberman RP, Mintz J. The neurocognitive effects of low-dose haloperidol: a two-year comparison with risperidone. Biol Psychiatry. 2002;51:972–978. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3223(02)01370-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Gutierrez-Galve L, Wheeler-Kingshott CA, Altmann DR, Price G, Chu EM, Leeson VC, Lobo A, Barker GJ, Barnes TR, Joyce EM, Ron MA. Changes in the frontotemporal cortex and cognitive correlates in first-episode psychosis. Biol Psychiatry. 2010;68:51–60. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.03.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Halberstadt AL, Geyer MA. Multiple receptors contribute to the behavioral effects of indoleamine hallucinogens. Neuropharmacology. 2011 doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.01.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Hammond RS, Tull LE, Stackman RW. On the delay-dependent involvement of the hippocampus in object recognition memory. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2004;82:26–34. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2004.03.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Han DD, Gu HH. Comparison of the monoamine transporters from human and mouse in their sensitivities to psychostimulant drugs. BMC Pharmacol. 2006;6:6. doi: 10.1186/1471-2210-6-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Hannesson DK, Howland JG, Phillips AG. Interaction between perirhinal and medial prefrontal cortex is required for temporal order but not recognition memory for objects in rats. J Neurosci. 2004a;24:4596–4604. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5517-03.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Hannesson DK, Vacca G, Howland JG, Phillips AG. Medial prefrontal cortex is involved in spatial temporal order memory but not spatial recognition memory in tests relying on spontaneous exploration in rats. Behav Brain Res. 2004b;153:273–285. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2003.12.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Harvey PD, Green MF, McGurk SR, Meltzer HY. Changes in cognitive functioning with risperidone and olanzapine treatment: a large-scale, double-blind, randomized study. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2003;169:404–411. doi: 10.1007/s00213-002-1342-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Harvey PD, Keefe RS. Studies of cognitive change in patients with schizophrenia following novel antipsychotic treatment. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:176–184. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.158.2.176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Harvey PD, Meltzer H, Simpson GM, Potkin SG, Loebel A, Siu C, Romano SJ. Improvement in cognitive function following a switch to ziprasidone from conventional antipsychotics, olanzapine, or risperidone in outpatients with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2004;66:101–113. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2003.07.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Harvey PD, Rabinowitz J, Eerdekens M, Davidson M. Treatment of cognitive impairment in early psychosis: a comparison of risperidone and haloperidol in a large long-term trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:1888–1895. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.10.1888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Hashimoto K, Fujita Y, Ishima T, Hagiwara H, Iyo M. Phencyclidine-induced cognitive deficits in mice are improved by subsequent subchronic administration of tropisetron: role of alpha7 nicotinic receptors. Eur J Pharmacol. 2006;553:191–195. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2006.09.055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Hashimoto K, Fujita Y, Iyo M. Phencyclidine-induced cognitive deficits in mice are improved by subsequent subchronic administration of fluvoxamine: role of sigma-1 receptors. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2007;32:514–521. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1301047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Heinrichs RW. Cognitive improvement in response to antipsychotic drugs: neurocognitive effects of antipsychotic medications in patients with chronic schizophrenia in the CATIE Trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64:631–632. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.64.6.631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Heres S, Davis J, Maino K, Jetzinger E, Kissling W, Leucht S. Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163:185–194. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.163.2.185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Horiguchi M, Huang M, Meltzer HY. Interaction of mGlu(2/3) agonism with clozapine and lurasidone to restore novel object recognition in subchronic phencyclidine-treated rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2011 doi: 10.1007/s00213-011-2251-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Humby T, Laird FM, Davies W, Wilkinson LS. Visuospatial attentional functioning in mice: interactions between cholinergic manipulations and genotype. Eur J Neurosci. 1999;11:2813–2823. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.1999.00701.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Idris N, Neill J, Grayson B, Bang-Andersen B, Witten LM, Brennum LT, Arnt J. Sertindole improves sub-chronic PCP-induced reversal learning and episodic memory deficits in rodents: involvement of 5-HT(6) and 5-HT (2A) receptor mechanisms. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2010;208:23–36. doi: 10.1007/s00213-009-1702-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Izquierdo A, Wiedholz LM, Millstein RA, Yang RJ, Bussey TJ, Saksida LM, Holmes A. Genetic and dopaminergic modulation of reversal learning in a touchscreen-based operant procedure for mice. Behav Brain Res. 2006;171:181–188. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2006.03.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Javitt DC. Glutamate as a therapeutic target in psychiatric disorders. Mol Psychiatry. 2004;9:984–997. 979. doi: 10.1038/sj.mp.4001551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Javitt DC, Zukin SR. Recent advances in the phencyclidine model of schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 1991;148:1301–1308. doi: 10.1176/ajp.148.10.1301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Jentsch JD, Dazzi L, Chhatwal JP, Verrico CD, Roth RH. Reduced prefrontal cortical dopamine, but not acetylcholine, release in vivo after repeated, intermittent phencyclidine administration to rats. Neurosci Lett. 1998;258:175–178. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3940(98)00879-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Jentsch JD, Roth RH. The neuropsychopharmacology of phencyclidine: from NMDA receptor hypofunction to the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology. 1999;20:201–225. doi: 10.1016/S0893-133X(98)00060-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Jones DN, Barnes JC, Kirkby DL, Higgins GA. Age-associated impairments in a test of attention: evidence for involvement of cholinergic systems. J Neurosci. 1995;15:7282–7292. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.15-11-07282.1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Jones PB, Barnes TR, Davies L, Dunn G, Lloyd H, Hayhurst KP, Murray RM, Markwick A, Lewis SW. Randomized controlled trial of the effect on Quality of Life of second- vs first-generation antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia Study (CUtLASS 1). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:1079–1087. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.10.1079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Kamei H, Nagai T, Nakano H, Togan Y, Takayanagi M, Takahashi K, Kobayashi K, Yoshida S, Maeda K, Takuma K, Nabeshima T, Yamada K. Repeated methamphetamine treatment impairs recognition memory through a failure of novelty-induced ERK1/2 activation in the prefrontal cortex of mice. Biol Psychiatry. 2006;59:75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.06.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Keefe RS, Bilder RM, Davis SM, Harvey PD, Palmer BW, Gold JM, Meltzer HY, Green MF, Capuano G, Stroup TS, McEvoy JP, Swartz MS, Rosenheck RA, Perkins DO, Davis CE, Hsiao JK, Lieberman JA. Neurocognitive effects of antipsychotic medications in patients with chronic schizophrenia in the CATIE Trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64:633–647. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.64.6.633. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Keefe RS, Malhotra AK, Meltzer HY, Kane JM, Buchanan RW, Murthy A, Sovel M, Li C, Goldman R. Efficacy and safety of donepezil in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: significant placebo/practice effects in a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008;33:1217–1228. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1301499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Keefe RS, Seidman LJ, Christensen BK, Hamer RM, Sharma T, Sitskoorn MM, Rock SL, Woolson S, Tohen M, Tollefson GD, Sanger TM, Lieberman JA. Long-term neurocognitive effects of olanzapine or low-dose haloperidol in first-episode psychosis. Biol Psychiatry. 2006;59:97–105. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.06.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Keefe RS, Silva SG, Perkins DO, Lieberman JA. The effects of atypical antipsychotic drugs on neurocognitive impairment in schizophrenia: a review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Bull. 1999;25:201–222. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Kern RS, Green MF, Marshall BD, Jr., Wirshing WC, Wirshing D, McGurk S, Marder SR, Mintz J. Risperidone vs. haloperidol on reaction time, manual dexterity, and motor learning in treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients. Biol Psychiatry. 1998;44:726–732. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3223(98)00088-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Kern RS, Green MF, Marshall BD, Jr., Wirshing WC, Wirshing D, McGurk SR, Marder SR, Mintz J. Risperidone versus haloperidol on secondary memory: can newer medications aid learning? Schizophr Bull. 1999;25:223–232. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. King MV, Sleight AJ, Woolley ML, Topham IA, Marsden CA, Fone KC. 5-HT6 receptor antagonists reverse delay-dependent deficits in novel object discrimination by enhancing consolidation--an effect sensitive to NMDA receptor antagonism. Neuropharmacology. 2004;47:195–204. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2004.03.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Klaning U. Greater occurrence of schizophrenia in dizygotic but not monozygotic twins. Register-based study. Br J Psychiatry. 1999;175:407–409. doi: 10.1192/bjp.175.5.407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Kraepelin E. Dementia praecox. 1896.
  98. Krebs-Thomson K, Ruiz EM, Masten V, Buell M, Geyer MA. The roles of 5-HT1A and 5-HT2 receptors in the effects of 5-MeO-DMT on locomotor activity and prepulse inhibition in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2006;189:319–329. doi: 10.1007/s00213-006-0566-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Krystal JH, Karper LP, Seibyl JP, Freeman GK, Delaney R, Bremner JD, Heninger GR, Bowers MB, Jr., Charney DS. Subanesthetic effects of the noncompetitive NMDA antagonist, ketamine, in humans. Psychotomimetic, perceptual, cognitive, and neuroendocrine responses. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51:199–214. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950030035004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Kunitachi S, Fujita Y, Ishima T, Kohno M, Horio M, Tanibuchi Y, Shirayama Y, Iyo M, Hashimoto K. Phencyclidine-induced cognitive deficits in mice are ameliorated by subsequent subchronic administration of donepezil: role of sigma-1 receptors. Brain Res. 2009;1279:189–196. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Laurent V, Podhorna J. Subchronic phencyclidine treatment impairs performance of C57BL/6 mice in the attentional set-shifting task. Behav Pharmacol. 2004;15:141–148. doi: 10.1097/00008877-200403000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Le Pen G, Grottick AJ, Higgins GA, Moreau JL. Phencyclidine exacerbates attentional deficits in a neurodevelopmental rat model of schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003;28:1799–1809. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Lecourtier L, Neijt HC, Kelly PH. Habenula lesions cause impaired cognitive performance in rats: implications for schizophrenia. Eur J Neurosci. 2004;19:2551–2560. doi: 10.1111/j.0953-816X.2004.03356.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Lee BJ, Lee JG, Kim YH. A 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of donepezil as an adjunct to haloperidol for treating cognitive impairments in patients with chronic schizophrenia. J Psychopharmacol. 2007;21:421–427. doi: 10.1177/0269881106070996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Levin ED, McClernon FJ, Rezvani AH. Nicotinic effects on cognitive function: behavioral characterization, pharmacological specification, and anatomic localization. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2006;184:523–539. doi: 10.1007/s00213-005-0164-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Lewis SW, Barnes TR, Davies L, Murray RM, Dunn G, Hayhurst KP, Markwick A, Lloyd H, Jones PB. Randomized controlled trial of effect of prescription of clozapine versus other second-generation antipsychotic drugs in resistant schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2006;32:715–723. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbj067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Lieberman JA, Javitch JA, Moore H. Cholinergic agonists as novel treatments for schizophrenia: the promise of rational drug development for psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165:931–936. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08050769. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  108. Liu P, Bilkey DK. The effects of NMDA lesions centered on the postrhinal cortex on spatial memory tasks in the rat. Behav Neurosci. 2002;116:860–873. doi: 10.1037//0735-7044.116.5.860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Loos M, Staal J, Schoffelmeer AN, Smit AB, Spijker S, Pattij T. Inhibitory control and response latency differences between C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice in a Go/No-Go and 5-choice serial reaction time task and strain-specific responsivity to amphetamine. Behav Brain Res. 2010;214:216–224. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2010.05.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Malhotra AK, Adler CM, Kennison SD, Elman I, Pickar D, Breier A. Clozapine blunts N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist-induced psychosis: a study with ketamine. Biol Psychiatry. 1997a;42:664–668. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3223(96)00546-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Malhotra AK, Pinals DA, Adler CM, Elman I, Clifton A, Pickar D, Breier A. Ketamine-induced exacerbation of psychotic symptoms and cognitive impairment in neuroleptic-free schizophrenics. Neuropsychopharmacology. 1997b;17:141–150. doi: 10.1016/S0893-133X(97)00036-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Malhotra AK, Pinals DA, Weingartner H, Sirocco K, Missar CD, Pickar D, Breier A. NMDA receptor function and human cognition: the effects of ketamine in healthy volunteers. Neuropsychopharmacology. 1996;14:301–307. doi: 10.1016/0893-133X(95)00137-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Mandillo S, Rinaldi A, Oliverio A, Mele A. Repeated administration of phencyclidine, amphetamine and MK-801 selectively impairs spatial learning in mice: a possible model of psychotomimetic drug-induced cognitive deficits. Behav Pharmacol. 2003;14:533–544. doi: 10.1097/00008877-200311000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Marder SR. The NIMH-MATRICS project for developing cognition-enhancing agents for schizophrenia. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2006;8:109–113. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2006.8.1/smarder. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Marder SR, Fenton W. Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia: NIMH MATRICS initiative to support the development of agents for improving cognition in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2004;72:5–9. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2004.09.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  116. Markou A, Chiamulera C, Geyer MA, Tricklebank M, Steckler T. Removing Obstacles in Neuroscience Drug Discovery: The Future Path for Animal Models. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008 doi: 10.1038/npp.2008.173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Martin LF, Kem WR, Freedman R. Alpha-7 nicotinic receptor agonists: potential new candidates for the treatment of schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2004;174:54–64. doi: 10.1007/s00213-003-1750-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Martinez V, Sarter M. Detection of the moderately beneficial cognitive effects of low-dose treatment with haloperidol or clozapine in an animal model of the attentional impairments of schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008;33:2635–2647. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1301661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Mazeh D, Zemishlani H, Barak Y, Mirecki I, Paleacu D. Donepezil for negative signs in elderly patients with schizophrenia: an add-on, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study. Int Psychogeriatr. 2006;18:429–436. doi: 10.1017/S1041610205003017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. McLean SL, Grayson B, Harris M, Protheroe C, Bate S, Woolley ML, Neill JC. Isolation rearing impairs novel object recognition and attentional set shifting performance in female rats. J Psychopharmacol. 2010;24:57–63. doi: 10.1177/0269881108093842. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. Mendelsohn E, Rosenthal M, Bohiri Y, Werber E, Kotler M, Strous RD. Rivastigmine augmentation in the management of chronic schizophrenia with comorbid dementia: an open-label study investigating effects on cognition, behaviour and activities of daily living. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2004;19:319–324. doi: 10.1097/00004850-200411000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Meyer JM, Nasrallah HA, McEvoy JP, Goff DC, Davis SM, Chakos M, Patel JK, Keefe RS, Stroup TS, Lieberman JA. The Clinical Antipsychotic Trials Of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) Schizophrenia Trial: clinical comparison of subgroups with and without the metabolic syndrome. Schizophr Res. 2005;80:9–18. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2005.07.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  123. Mintz J, Kopelowicz A. CUtLASS confirms CATIE. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64:978. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.64.8.978-a. author reply 979-980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  124. Mishara AL, Goldberg TE. A meta-analysis and critical review of the effects of conventional neuroleptic treatment on cognition in schizophrenia: opening a closed book. Biol Psychiatry. 2004;55:1013–1022. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.01.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  125. Mizoguchi H, Takuma K, Fukakusa A, Ito Y, Nakatani A, Ibi D, Kim HC, Yamada K. Improvement by minocycline of methamphetamine-induced impairment of recognition memory in mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2008;196:233–241. doi: 10.1007/s00213-007-0955-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  126. Moore H. The role of rodent models in the discovery of new treatments for schizophrenia: updating our strategy. Schizophr Bull. 2010;36:1066–1072. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbq106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. Mori K, Obara Y, Moriya T, Inatomi S, Nakahata N. Effects of Hericium erinaceus on amyloid beta(25-35) peptide-induced learning and memory deficits in mice. Biomed Res. 2011;32:67–72. doi: 10.2220/biomedres.32.67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  128. Morris RG, Garrud P, Rawlins JN, O'Keefe J. Place navigation impaired in rats with hippocampal lesions. Nature. 1982;297:681–683. doi: 10.1038/297681a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  129. Nagai T, Murai R, Matsui K, Kamei H, Noda Y, Furukawa H, Nabeshima T. Aripiprazole ameliorates phencyclidine-induced impairment of recognition memory through dopamine D1 and serotonin 5-HT1A receptors. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2009;202:315–328. doi: 10.1007/s00213-008-1240-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  130. Neill JC, Barnes S, Cook S, Grayson B, Idris NF, McLean SL, Snigdha S, Rajagopal L, Harte MK. Animal models of cognitive dysfunction and negative symptoms of schizophrenia: Focus on NMDA receptor antagonism. Pharmacol Ther. 2010 doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2010.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Niimi K, Takahashi E, Itakura C. Improved short-term memory and increased expression of NR2B observed in senescence-accelerated mouse (SAM) P6. Exp Gerontol. 2008;43:847–852. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2008.06.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  132. Noda Y, Mouri A, Ando Y, Waki Y, Yamada SN, Yoshimi A, Yamada K, Ozaki N, Wang D, Nabeshima T. Galantamine ameliorates the impairment of recognition memory in mice repeatedly treated with methamphetamine: involvement of allosteric potentiation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and dopaminergic-ERK1/2 systems. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2010;13:1343–1354. doi: 10.1017/S1461145710000222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  133. Nolen WA, Kupka RW, Hellemann G, Frye MA, Altshuler LL, Leverich GS, Suppes T, Keck PE, Jr., McElroy S, Grunze H, Mintz J, Post RM. Tranylcypromine vs. lamotrigine in the treatment of refractory bipolar depression: a failed but clinically useful study. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2007;115:360–365. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2007.00993.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  134. Oranje B, Gispen-de Wied CC, Verbaten MN, Kahn RS. Modulating sensory gating in healthy volunteers: the effects of ketamine and haloperidol. Biol Psychiatry. 2002;52:887–895. doi: 10.1016/s0006-3223(02)01377-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  135. Patil ST, Zhang L, Martenyi F, Lowe SL, Jackson KA, Andreev BV, Avedisova AS, Bardenstein LM, Gurovich IY, Morozova MA, Mosolov SN, Neznanov NG, Reznik AM, Smulevich AB, Tochilov VA, Johnson BG, Monn JA, Schoepp DD. Activation of mGlu2/3 receptors as a new approach to treat schizophrenia: a randomized Phase 2 clinical trial. Nat Med. 2007;13:1102–1107. doi: 10.1038/nm1632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  136. Pattij T, Janssen MC, Loos M, Smit AB, Schoffelmeer AN, van Gaalen MM. Strain specificity and cholinergic modulation of visuospatial attention in three inbred mouse strains. Genes Brain Behav. 2007;6:579–587. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2006.00284.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  137. Paulsen JS, Butters N, Sadek JR, Johnson SA, Salmon DP, Swerdlow NR, Swenson MR. Distinct cognitive profiles of cortical and subcortical dementia in advanced illness. Neurology. 1995;45:951–956. doi: 10.1212/wnl.45.5.951. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  138. Pearlson GD. Neurobiology of schizophrenia. Ann Neurol. 2000;48:556–566. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  139. Powell SB, Geyer MA, Preece MA, Pitcher LK, Reynolds GP, Swerdlow NR. Dopamine depletion of the nucleus accumbens reverses isolation-induced deficits in prepulse inhibition in rats. Neuroscience. 2003;119:233–240. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4522(03)00122-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  140. Powell SB, Zhou X, Geyer MA. Prepulse inhibition and genetic mouse models of schizophrenia. Behav Brain Res. 2009;204:282–294. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.04.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  141. Purdon SE, Malla A, Labelle A, Lit W. Neuropsychological change in patients with schizophrenia after treatment with quetiapine or haloperidol. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2001;26:137–149. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  142. Radek RJ, Kohlhaas KL, Rueter LE, Mohler EG. Treating the cognitive deficits of schizophrenia with alpha4beta2 neuronal nicotinic receptor agonists. Curr Pharm Des. 2010;16:309–322. doi: 10.2174/138161210790170166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  143. Ralph-Williams RJ, Lehmann-Masten V, Geyer MA. Dopamine D1 rather than D2 receptor agonists disrupt prepulse inhibition of startle in mice. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003;28:108–118. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  144. Ralph-Williams RJ, Lehmann-Masten V, Otero-Corchon V, Low MJ, Geyer MA. Differential effects of direct and indirect dopamine agonists on prepulse inhibition: a study in D1 and D2 receptor knock-out mice. J Neurosci. 2002;22:9604–9611. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-21-09604.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  145. Ralph RJ, Caine SB. Dopamine D1 and D2 agonist effects on prepulse inhibition and locomotion: comparison of Sprague-Dawley rats to Swiss-Webster, 129X1/SvJ, C57BL/6J, and DBA/2J mice. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2005;312:733–741. doi: 10.1124/jpet.104.074468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  146. Ribeiz SR, Bassitt DP, Arrais JA, Avila R, Steffens DC, Bottino CM. Cholinesterase inhibitors as adjunctive therapy in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder: a review and meta-analysis of the literature. CNS Drugs. 2010;24:303–317. doi: 10.2165/11530260-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  147. Richelson E, Souder T. Binding of antipsychotic drugs to human brain receptors focus on newer generation compounds. Life Sci. 2000;68:29–39. doi: 10.1016/s0024-3205(00)00911-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  148. Risch SC, Horner MD, McGurk SR, Palecko S, Markowitz JS, Nahas Z, DeVane CL. Double-blind donepezil-placebo crossover augmentation study of atypical antipsychotics in chronic, stable schizophrenia: a pilot study. Schizophr Res. 2007;93:131–135. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2007.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  149. Robbins TW. The 5-choice serial reaction time task: behavioural pharmacology and functional neurochemistry. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2002;163:362–380. doi: 10.1007/s00213-002-1154-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  150. Rodefer JS, Murphy ER, Baxter MG. PDE10A inhibition reverses subchronic PCP-induced deficits in attentional set-shifting in rats. Eur J Neurosci. 2005;21:1070–1076. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03937.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  151. Rollnik JD, Borsutzky M, Huber TJ, Mogk H, Seifert J, Emrich HM, Schneider U. Short-term cognitive improvement in schizophrenics treated with typical and atypical neuroleptics. Neuropsychobiology. 2002;45:74–80. doi: 10.1159/000048680. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  152. Sacco KA, Creeden C, Reutenauer EL, George TP. Effects of galantamine on cognitive deficits in smokers and non-smokers with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2008;103:326–327. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2008.05.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  153. Sarter M. Animal cognition: defining the issues. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2004;28:645–650. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  154. Sarter M. Preclinical research into cognition enhancers. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2006;27:602–608. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2006.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  155. Scarr E, Dean B. Muscarinic receptors: do they have a role in the pathology and treatment of schizophrenia? J Neurochem. 2008;107:1188–1195. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2008.05711.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  156. Schubert MH, Young KA, Hicks PB. Galantamine improves cognition in schizophrenic patients stabilized on risperidone. Biol Psychiatry. 2006;60:530–533. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.04.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  157. Sharma T, Reed C, Aasen I, Kumari V. Cognitive effects of adjunctive 24-weeks Rivastigmine treatment to antipsychotics in schizophrenia: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind investigation. Schizophr Res. 2006;85:73–83. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2006.03.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  158. Silvers JM, Harrod SB, Mactutus CF, Booze RM. Automation of the novel object recognition task for use in adolescent rats. J Neurosci Methods. 2007;166:99–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.06.032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  159. Singer P, Feldon J, Yee BK. Are DBA/2 mice associated with schizophrenia-like endophenotypes? A behavioural contrast with C57BL/6 mice. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2009;206:677–698. doi: 10.1007/s00213-009-1568-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  160. Smith RC, Warner-Cohen J, Matute M, Butler E, Kelly E, Vaidhyanathaswamy S, Khan A. Effects of nicotine nasal spray on cognitive function in schizophrenia. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31:637–643. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  161. Spohn HE, Strauss ME. Relation of neuroleptic and anticholinergic medication to cognitive functions in schizophrenia. J Abnorm Psychol. 1989;98:367–380. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.98.4.367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  162. Stevens KE, Freedman R, Collins AC, Hall M, Leonard S, Marks MJ, Rose GM. Genetic correlation of inhibitory gating of hippocampal auditory evoked response and alpha-bungarotoxin-binding nicotinic cholinergic receptors in inbred mouse strains. Neuropsychopharmacology. 1996;15:152–162. doi: 10.1016/0893-133X(95)00178-G. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  163. Stryjer R, Strous RD, Bar F, Werber E, Shaked G, Buhiri Y, Kotler M, Weizman A, Rabey JM. Beneficial effect of donepezil augmentation for the management of comorbid schizophrenia and dementia. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2003;26:12–17. doi: 10.1097/00002826-200301000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  164. Terry AV., Jr. Role of the central cholinergic system in the therapeutics of schizophrenia. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2008;6:286–292. doi: 10.2174/157015908785777247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  165. Thomsen MS, Christensen DZ, Hansen HH, Redrobe JP, Mikkelsen JD. alpha(7) Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor activation prevents behavioral and molecular changes induced by repeated phencyclidine treatment. Neuropharmacology. 2009;56:1001–1009. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2009.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  166. van Os J, McGuffin P. Can the social environment cause schizophrenia? Br J Psychiatry. 2003;182:291–292. doi: 10.1192/bjp.182.4.291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  167. Velligan DI, Newcomer J, Pultz J, Csernansky J, Hoff AL, Mahurin R, Miller AL. Does cognitive function improve with quetiapine in comparison to haloperidol? Schizophr Res. 2002;53:239–248. doi: 10.1016/s0920-9964(01)00268-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  168. Velligan DI, Prihoda TJ, Sui D, Ritch JL, Maples N, Miller AL. The effectiveness of quetiapine versus conventional antipsychotics in improving cognitive and functional outcomes in standard treatment settings. J Clin Psychiatry. 2003;64:524–531. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v64n0505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  169. Wang D, Noda Y, Zhou Y, Nitta A, Furukawa H, Nabeshima T. Synergistic effect of galantamine with risperidone on impairment of social interaction in phencyclidine-treated mice as a schizophrenic animal model. Neuropharmacology. 2007;52:1179–1187. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2006.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  170. Waters KA, Burnham KE, O'Connor D, Dawson GR, Dias R. Assessment of modafinil on attentional processes in a five-choice serial reaction time test in the rat. J Psychopharmacol. 2005;19:149–158. doi: 10.1177/0269881105048995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  171. Weniger G, Irle E. Allocentric memory impaired and egocentric memory intact as assessed by virtual reality in recent-onset schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2008;101:201–209. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2008.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  172. Wietrzych M, Meziane H, Sutter A, Ghyselinck N, Chapman PF, Chambon P, Krezel W. Working memory deficits in retinoid X receptor gamma-deficient mice. Learn Mem. 2005;12:318–326. doi: 10.1101/lm.89805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  173. Wilkinson DG, Francis PT, Schwam E, Payne-Parrish J. Cholinesterase inhibitors used in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: the relationship between pharmacological effects and clinical efficacy. Drugs Aging. 2004;21:453–478. doi: 10.2165/00002512-200421070-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  174. Winters BD, Forwood SE, Cowell RA, Saksida LM, Bussey TJ. Double dissociation between the effects of peri-postrhinal cortex and hippocampal lesions on tests of object recognition and spatial memory: heterogeneity of function within the temporal lobe. J Neurosci. 2004;24:5901–5908. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1346-04.2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  175. Yamada M, Hayashida M, Zhao Q, Shibahara N, Tanaka K, Miyata T, Matsumoto K. Ameliorative effects of yokukansan on learning and memory deficits in olfactory bulbectomized mice. J Ethnopharmacol. 2011 doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2011.04.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  176. Yee BK. Cytotoxic lesion of the medial prefrontal cortex abolishes the partial reinforcement extinction effect, attenuates prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle reflex and induces transient hyperlocomotion, while sparing spontaneous object recognition memory in the rat. Neuroscience. 2000;95:675–689. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4522(99)00441-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  177. Young JW, Geyer MA. Report on putative preclinical models of the MATRICS battery. 2007 subcommittee, p. http://www.turns.ucla.edu/preclinical-TURNS-report-2006b.pdf.
  178. Young JW, Powell SB, Geyer MA, Jeste DV, Risbrough VB. The mouse attentional set-shifting task: A method for assaying successful cognitive aging? Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2010;10:243–251. doi: 10.3758/CABN.10.2.243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  179. Young JW, Powell SB, Risbrough V, Marston HM, Geyer MA. Using the MATRICS to guide development of a preclinical cognitive test battery for research in schizophrenia. Pharmacol Ther. 2009;122:150–202. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2009.02.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES