Idioma:

Tests of unconditioned anxiety — Pitfalls and disappointments

Ennaceur, A

Physiology & behavior, 2014-08, Vol.135, p.55-71 [Periódico revisado por pares]

Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por

Enviar para

Título:
Tests of unconditioned anxiety — Pitfalls and disappointments
Autor: Ennaceur, A
Assuntos: Animals ; Anxiety - diagnosis ; Anxiety - psychology ; Anxiolytics ; Avoidance ; Behavior, Animal - physiology ; Behavioral psychophysiology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Conditioning (Psychology) - physiology ; Disease Models, Animal ; Exploratory Behavior - physiology ; Fear ; Fear - psychology ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; GABAA ; Grooming ; Maze Learning - physiology ; Medical sciences ; Mice ; Motor Activity - physiology ; Neuropharmacology ; Novelty ; Pharmacology. Drug treatments ; Preference ; Psychiatry ; Psycholeptics: tranquillizer, neuroleptic ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Psychopharmacology ; Rats ; Rearing ; Reproducibility of Results ; Stress
É parte de: Physiology & behavior, 2014-08, Vol.135, p.55-71
Notas: ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Review-1
Descrição: Abstract The plus-maze, the light–dark box and the open-field are the main current tests of unconditioned anxiety for mice and rats. Despite their disappointing achievements, they remain as popular as ever and seem to play an important role in an ever-growing demand for behavioral phenotyping and drug screening. Numerous reviews have repeatedly reported their lack of consistency and reliability but they failed to address the core question of whether these tests do provide unequivocal measures of fear-induced anxiety, that these measurements are not confused with measures of fear-induced avoidance or natural preference responses — i.e. discriminant validity. In the present report, I examined numerous issues that undermine the validity of the current tests, and I highlighted various flaws in the aspects of these tests and the methodologies pursued. This report concludes that the evidence in support of the validity of the plus-maze, the light/dark box and the open-field as anxiety tests is poor and methodologically questionable.
Editor: Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc
Idioma: Inglês

Links

Voltar para lista de resultados

Realização: Logos de Redes Sociais:

Tests of unconditioned anxiety — Pitfalls and disappointments

Ennaceur, A

Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.