Midazolam, hippocampal function, and transitive inference: Reply to Greene
Affiliation
Dept of Psychology and Program in Neuroscience, University of Arizona, Tucson, USADept of Psychology and Center for Neuroscience, University of Colorado at Boulder. Boulder, USA
Issue Date
2008
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
BioMed CentralCitation
Behavioral and Brain Functions 2008, 4:5 doi:10.1186/1744-9081-4-5Journal
Behavioral and Brain FunctionsRights
© 2008 Frank et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0).Collection Information
This item is part of the UA Faculty Publications collection. For more information this item or other items in the UA Campus Repository, contact the University of Arizona Libraries at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
The transitive inference (TI) task assesses the ability to generalize learned knowledge to new contexts, and is thought to depend on the hippocampus (Dusek & Eichenbaum, 1997). Animals or humans learn in separate trials to choose stimulus A over B, B over C, C over D and D over E, via reinforcement feedback. Transitive responding based on the hierarchical structure A > B > C > D > E is then tested with the novel BD pair. We and others have argued that successful BD performance by animals - and even humans in some implicit studies - can be explained by simple reinforcement learning processes which do not depend critically on the hippocampus, but rather on the striatal dopamine system. We recently showed that the benzodiazepene midazolam, which is thought to disrupt hippocampal function, profoundly impaired human memory recall performance but actually enhanced implicit TI performance (Frank, O'Reilly & Curran, 2006). We posited that midazolam biased participants to recruit striatum during learning due to dysfunctional hippocampal processing, and that this change actually supported generalization of reinforcement values. Greene (2007) questions the validity of our pharmacological assumptions and argues that our conclusions are unfounded. Here we stand by our original hypothesis, which remains the most parsimonious account of the data, and is grounded by multiple lines of evidence.EISSN
1744-9081Version
Final published versionAdditional Links
http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/4/1/5ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1186/1744-9081-4-5
Scopus Count
Collections
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2008 Frank et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0).