Facilitation of Learning and Rehabilitation in Rats by Inducing Response-like Movement

Oral administration of cyclic glycyl-proline facilitates task learning in a rat stroke model

Cyclic glycyl-proline (cGP) exerts neuroprotective effects against ischemic stroke and may promote neural plasticity or network remodeling. We sought to determine to what extent oral administration of cGP could facilitate task learning in rats with ischemic lesions. We trained rats to perform a choice reaction time task using their forepaws. One week after changing the food to pellets containing cGP (no cGP: 0 mg/kg; low cGP: 25 mg/kg; and high cGP: 75 mg/kg), we made a focal ischemic lesion on the left or right forepaw area of the sensorimotor cortex. After recovery of task performance, we altered the correct-response side of the task, and then analyzed the number of training days required for the rat to reach a learning criterion (error rate < 15%) and the regulation of adult neurogenesis in the subventricular zones (SVZs), taking lesion size into account. The low-cGP group required fewer training days for task learning than the no-cGP group. Unexpectedly, rats with larger lesions required fewer training days in the no-cGP and low-cGP groups, but more training days in the high-cGP group. The number of Ki67-immunopositive cells (indicating proliferative cells) in ipsilesional SVZ increased more rapidly in the low-cGP and high-cGP groups than in the no-cGP group. However, lesion size had only a small effect on required training days and the number of Ki67-immunopositive cells. We conclude that oral administration of cGP can facilitate task learning in rats with focal ischemic infarction through neural plasticity and network remodeling, even with minimal neuroprotective effects.

Effects of forced movements on learning: Findings from a choice reaction time task in rats

To investigate how motor sensation facilitates learning, we used a sensory–motor association task to determine whether the sensation induced by forced movements contributes to performance improvements in rats. The rats were trained to respond to a tactile stimulus (an air puff) by releasing a lever pressed by the stimulated (compatible condition) or nonstimulated (incompatible condition) forepaw. When error rates fell below 15%, the compatibility condition was changed (reversal learning). An error trial was followed by a lever activation trial in which a lever on the correct or the incorrect response side was automatically elevated at a preset time of 120, 220, 320, or 420 ms after tactile stimulation. This lever activation induced forepaw movement similar to that in a voluntary lever release response, and also induced body movement that occasionally caused elevation of the other forepaw. The effects of lever activation may have produced a sensation similar to that of voluntary lever release by the forepaw on the nonactivated lever. We found that the performance improvement rate was increased by the lever activation procedure on the incorrect response side (i.e., with the nonactivated lever on the correct response side). Furthermore, the performance improvement rate changed depending on the timing of lever activation: Facilitative effects were largest with lever activation on the incorrect response side at 320 ms after tactile stimulation, whereas hindering effects were largest for lever activation on the correct response side at 220 ms after tactile stimulation. These findings suggest that forced movements, which provide tactile and proprioceptive stimulation, affect sensory–motor associative learning in a time-dependent manner.