• Neurosci Biobehav Rev · Apr 2015

    Review Comparative Study

    Comparison of operant escape and reflex tests of nociceptive sensitivity.

    • Charles J Vierck and Robert P Yezierski.
    • Department of Neuroscience, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA; McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA. Electronic address: cvierck@mbi.ufl.edu.
    • Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2015 Apr 1;51:223-42.

    AbstractTesting of reflexes such as flexion/withdrawal or licking/guarding is well established as the standard for evaluating nociceptive sensitivity and its modulation in preclinical investigations of laboratory animals. Concerns about this approach have been dismissed for practical reasons - reflex testing requires no training of the animals; it is simple to instrument; and responses are characterized by observers as latencies or thresholds for evocation. In order to evaluate this method, the present review summarizes a series of experiments in which reflex and operant escape responding are compared in normal animals and following surgical models of neuropathic pain or pharmacological intervention for pain. Particular attention is paid to relationships between reflex and escape responding and information on the pain sensitivity of normal human subjects or patients with pain. Numerous disparities between results for reflex and operant escape measures are described, but the results of operant testing are consistent with evidence from humans. Objective reasons are given for experimenters to choose between these and other methods of evaluating the nociceptive sensitivity of laboratory animals.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.