Source Paper
Enhanced and Impaired Attentional Performance After Infusion of D1 Dopaminergic Receptor Agents into Rat Prefrontal Cortex
Sylvie Granon, Filippo Passetti, et al.
Source Paper
Sylvie Granon, Filippo Passetti, et al.
Journal of Neuroscience • 2000
The role in spatial divided and sustained attention of D1 and D2-like dopamine (DA) receptors in the rat prelimbic medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) was investigated in a five-choice serial reaction time task. Rats were trained to detect brief flashes of light (0.5–0.25 sec) presented randomly in a spatial array of five apertures. When performance stabilized, animals received bilateral microinfusions of either the D1 DA receptor antagonist SCH 23390, the D1 DA receptor agonist SKF 38393, or the D2 DA antagonist sulpiride into the mPFC. Rats were divided into two groups, with low (<75% correct) and high (>75%) baseline levels of accuracy. Infusions of the D2 receptor antagonist sulpiride had no significant effect on any task variable. SCH 23390 (0.3 µg) selectively impaired the accuracy of attentional performance in rats in the high baseline condition. By contrast, SKF 38393 (0.06 µg) enhanced the accuracy of attentional performance in the low baseline condition, a lower dose (0.03 µg) also increasing the speed of making correct responses. Finally, the beneficial effects of SKF-383893 on choice accuracy were antagonized by SCH 23390 (1.0 µg). The results provide apparently the first demonstration of enhanced cognitive function after local administration of a D1 receptor agonist to the mPFC and suggest dissociable roles of D1 and D2 DA receptors of the mPFC in modulating attentional function.
Objective: Investigate the role of D1 and D2-like dopamine receptors in the rat prelimbic medial prefrontal cortex in spatial divided and sustained attention using a five-choice serial reaction time task
This is a Five-Choice Serial Reaction Time Task protocol using rat as the model organism. The procedure involves 7 procedural steps, 1 equipment items, 3 materials. Extracted from a 2000 paper published in Journal of Neuroscience.
Model and subjects
rat • Not specified • unknown • Not specified • Not specified
Study window
Estimated timing pending
Core workflow
Rat training on five-choice serial reaction time task • Baseline performance assessment • Bilateral microinfusion of D1 antagonist SCH 23390
Primary readouts
Key equipment and reagents
Verified items
0
Direct vendor links
0
Use this page as an execution guide, then fall back to the source paper whenever you need exact exclusions, dosing details, or assay-specific caveats.
Confirm first
Use the page like this
Start here. The step list is optimized for running the experiment, with direct vendor links available inline when you need to source a cited item.
Rats were trained to detect brief flashes of light presented randomly in a spatial array of five apertures
Note: Training continued until baseline performance stabilized
“Rats were trained to detect brief flashes of light (0.5–0.25 sec) presented randomly in a spatial array of five apertures. When performance stabilized, animals received bilateral microinfusions”
Rats were divided into two groups based on baseline accuracy levels: low (<75% correct) and high (>75% correct)
Note: Baseline accuracy determined group assignment for subsequent drug testing
“Rats were divided into two groups, with low (<75% correct) and high (>75%) baseline levels of accuracy”
Animals received bilateral microinfusions of SCH 23390 (D1 dopamine receptor antagonist) into the prelimbic medial prefrontal cortex
Note: Two doses tested: 0.3 µg (in high baseline group) and 1.0 µg (in combination with SKF 38393)
“animals received bilateral microinfusions of either the D1 DA receptor antagonist SCH 23390, the D1 DA receptor agonist SKF 38393, or the D2 DA antagonist sulpiride into the mPFC”
Animals received bilateral microinfusions of SKF 38393 (D1 dopamine receptor agonist) into the prelimbic medial prefrontal cortex
Note: Two doses tested: 0.06 µg (in low baseline group) and 0.03 µg (also in low baseline group)
“animals received bilateral microinfusions of either the D1 DA receptor antagonist SCH 23390, the D1 DA receptor agonist SKF 38393, or the D2 DA antagonist sulpiride into the mPFC”
Animals received bilateral microinfusions of sulpiride (D2 dopamine receptor antagonist) into the prelimbic medial prefrontal cortex
Note: Dose not specified in provided text
“animals received bilateral microinfusions of either the D1 DA receptor antagonist SCH 23390, the D1 DA receptor agonist SKF 38393, or the D2 DA antagonist sulpiride into the mPFC”
Animals received bilateral microinfusions of both SKF 38393 (0.06 µg) and SCH 23390 (1.0 µg) to test antagonism of D1 agonist effects
Note: Tested whether SCH 23390 antagonizes beneficial effects of SKF 38393
“the beneficial effects of SKF-383893 on choice accuracy were antagonized by SCH 23390 (1.0 µg)”
Assess accuracy of attentional performance and speed of making correct responses on the five-choice serial reaction time task following drug infusions
Note: Task variables measured include accuracy and response speed
“SCH 23390 (0.3 µg) selectively impaired the accuracy of attentional performance in rats in the high baseline condition. By contrast, SKF 38393 (0.06 µg) enhanced the accuracy of attentional performance in the low baseline condition, a lower dose (0.03 µg) also increasing the speed of making correct responses”
This section explains what the experiment is doing, which readouts matter, what the data artifacts usually look like, and how the analysis should flow from raw capture to reported result.
Investigate the role of D1 and D2-like dopamine receptors in the rat prelimbic medial prefrontal cortex in spatial divided and sustained attention using a five-choice serial reaction time task
Objective
Investigate the role of D1 and D2-like dopamine receptors in the rat prelimbic medial prefrontal cortex in spatial divided and sustained attention using a five-choice serial reaction time task
Subjects
From paperrat • Not specified • unknown • Not specified • Not specified
Cohort notes
From paperRats were divided into two groups with low (<75% correct) and high (>75%) baseline levels of accuracy
Rat training on five-choice serial reaction time task (Until performance stabilized)
Baseline performance assessment (Not specified)
Bilateral microinfusion of D1 antagonist SCH 23390 (Not specified)
Bilateral microinfusion of D1 agonist SKF 38393 (Not specified)
Accuracy of attentional performance (percentage correct responses)
From paperNot specified in provided text
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Speed of making correct responses
From paperNot specified in provided text
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Task variables affected by dopamine receptor manipulation
From paperNot specified in provided text
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Accuracy of attentional performance (percentage correct responses)
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Speed of making correct responses
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Task variables affected by dopamine receptor manipulation
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Acquisition
Collect raw experimental outputs with enough metadata to preserve sample identity, condition, and timing.
Preprocessing / cleaning
Not specified in provided text
Scoring or quantification
Quantify the primary readouts for this experiment: Accuracy of attentional performance (percentage correct responses); Speed of making correct responses; Task variables affected by dopamine receptor manipulation.
Statistical comparison
Statistical method not yet structured for this page.
Reporting output
Report representative outputs alongside summary comparisons for Accuracy of attentional performance (percentage correct responses), Speed of making correct responses, Task variables affected by dopamine receptor manipulation.
Source links and direct wording from the methods section for validation and deeper review.
Citation
Sylvie Granon et al. (2000). Enhanced and Impaired Attentional Performance After Infusion of D1 Dopaminergic Receptor Agents into Rat Prefrontal Cortex. Journal of Neuroscience
“”
“”
“”
“”
Direct vendor pages are linked from the protocol above. This section stays focused on the full comparison view and the prep checklist.
Gather these items before starting the experiment. Check off items as you prepare.
Not specified • Not specified • Not specified • Not specified
Not specified • Not specified • Not specified • Not specified
Not specified • Not specified • Not specified • Not specified
Not specified • Not specified • Not specified • Not specified
Not specified • Not specified
Use this section as the page quality checkpoint. It keeps section navigation, evidence access, readiness, and verification meaning in one place.
Current status surfaces were computed from experiment data updated Feb 28, 2026.
Source access
Jump back into the original paper or the methods evidence section when you need exact wording, exclusions, or method-specific caveats.
This protocol has structured steps plus evidence quotes, and is ready for canonical sync.
Steps
7
Evidence Quotes
11
Protocol Items
4
Linked Products
0
Canonical Sync
Pending
What this means
The completeness score reflects how much structured protocol data is present: steps, methods evidence, listed materials, linked products, and paper provenance.
Computed from the current experiment record updated Feb 28, 2026.
Canonical Sync shows whether a ConductGraph-backed protocol is available for this experiment route right now. It is a sync-status signal, not a claim that every downstream vendor link or step detail is perfect.
Steps
7
Evidence
11
Specific Products
0/0
Canonical Sync
Pending
What this score means
The verification score reflects evidence coverage, subject detail, paper provenance, step depth, and whether linked products resolve to specific item pages instead of generic searches.
Computed from the current experiment record updated Feb 28, 2026.
A page can have structured steps and still need review when evidence is thin, product links are generic, or canonical protocol coverage is still pending.
What still needs work