BACKGROUND: Prepulse inhibition and latent inhibition are the two animal paradigms currently dominating neuropharmacological research on attentional deficits in schizophrenia. Both paradigms have been shown to have a reasonable amount of face, predictive, and construct validity, but responsiveness to typical and atypical antipsychotics differs between the two, as indicated by animal and human studies. The relationship between the paradigms in schizophrenic patients is still unclear. METHODS: We tested prepulse inhibition and auditory latent inhibition in a sample of 33 chronic schizophrenic patients medicated either with atypical (n = 17) or typical (n = 16) antipsychotics. RESULTS: Latent inhibition was found to be intact in both patient groups. Prepulse inhibition was intact in the group receiving atypicals, but deficient in the group receiving typicals (at 60 msec lead interval condition). CONCLUSIONS: The direct comparison supports the hypothesis that atypical and typical antipsychotics have different effects on prepulse inhibition than on latent inhibition in schizophrenic patients; however, the results may also be explained by a greater sensitivity of the prepulse inhibition method. Because it is crucial to understand why there are considerable differences between the two paradigms and between human and animal studies, research should focus more strongly on comparative approaches.
BACKGROUND: Prepulse inhibition and latent inhibition are the two animal paradigms currently dominating neuropharmacological research on attentional deficits in schizophrenia. Both paradigms have been shown to have a reasonable amount of face, predictive, and construct validity, but responsiveness to typical and atypical antipsychotics differs between the two, as indicated by animal and human studies. The relationship between the paradigms in schizophrenicpatients is still unclear. METHODS: We tested prepulse inhibition and auditory latent inhibition in a sample of 33 chronic schizophrenicpatients medicated either with atypical (n = 17) or typical (n = 16) antipsychotics. RESULTS: Latent inhibition was found to be intact in both patient groups. Prepulse inhibition was intact in the group receiving atypicals, but deficient in the group receiving typicals (at 60 msec lead interval condition). CONCLUSIONS: The direct comparison supports the hypothesis that atypical and typical antipsychotics have different effects on prepulse inhibition than on latent inhibition in schizophrenicpatients; however, the results may also be explained by a greater sensitivity of the prepulse inhibition method. Because it is crucial to understand why there are considerable differences between the two paradigms and between human and animal studies, research should focus more strongly on comparative approaches.
Authors: Vivian W Chow; Alena V Savonenko; Tatiana Melnikova; Hyunsu Kim; Donald L Price; Tong Li; Philip C Wong Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Daniel Klamer; Erik Pålsson; Kim Fejgin; Jianhua Zhang; Jörgen A Engel; Lennart Svensson Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2004-12-24 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Sarah K Baisley; Katherine L Fallace; Abha K Rajbhandari; Vaishali P Bakshi Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Wendy Hasenkamp; Michael P Epstein; Amanda Green; Lisette Wilcox; William Boshoven; Barbara Lewison; Erica Duncan Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2010-05-16 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Neal R Swerdlow; Martin Weber; Ying Qu; Gregory A Light; David L Braff Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2008-06-21 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: A V Savonenko; T Melnikova; F M Laird; K-A Stewart; D L Price; P C Wong Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-04-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Veena Kumari; Emmanuelle R Peters; Dominic Fannon; Preethi Premkumar; Ingrid Aasen; Michael A Cooke; Anantha P Anilkumar; Elizabeth Kuipers Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2008-02-11 Impact factor: 4.939