Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro

eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Cognition and Behavior

Atypical Social Development in Vasopressin-Deficient Brattleboro Rats

Matthew J. Paul, Nicole V. Peters, Mary K. Holder, Anastasia M. Kim, Jack Whylings, Joseph I. Terranova and Geert J. de Vries
eNeuro 24 March 2016, 3 (2) ENEURO.0150-15.2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0150-15.2016
Matthew J. Paul
1Psychology Department, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, New York 14260
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicole V. Peters
2Neuroscience Department, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30302
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mary K. Holder
2Neuroscience Department, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30302
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anastasia M. Kim
2Neuroscience Department, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30302
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jack Whylings
2Neuroscience Department, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30302
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph I. Terranova
2Neuroscience Department, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30302
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Geert J. de Vries
2Neuroscience Department, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30302
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Hom Brattleboro weanlings play less than their WT and Het littermates. A, B, Number of total play behaviors (A) and pins (B) of Hom, Het, and WT rats during a 20 min test at P17, P19, P21, or P23. Sample sizes are indicated within each bar. Data from each age were obtained from separate cohorts of animals. Genotypes with differing letters differ significantly from each other (p < 0.05, Fisher’s PLSD); where differences approach significance, the p value is included in parentheses next to the letter representing the appropriate comparison. See Results for ANOVA details.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Social play is decreased in Hom Brattleboro juveniles. A, B, Number of pins (A) and play attacks (B) of male and female Hom, Het, and WT rats during a 20 min test at P34 or P44. C, D, The temporal profile of play is illustrated in C (for P34) and D (for P44) as the number of total play behaviors binned every 5 min. Sample sizes are indicated within each bar in A and B. Data from each age were obtained from separate cohorts of animals. Genotypes with differing letters differ significantly from each other (p < 0.05, Fisher’s PLSD); where differences approach significance, the p value is included in parentheses next to the letter representing the appropriate comparison. In C and D, significant differences between Hom and WT or Het rats within each bin are indicated by * and #, respectively (p < 0.005, Fisher’s PLSD). See Results for ANOVA details.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Social behavior is altered in Hom Brattleboro juveniles. A–D, Number of total social behaviors (A), total play behaviors (B), social investigation & allogrooming behaviors (C), and huddling episodes (D) of Hom, Het, and WT rats during a 20 min test at P34 or P44. Sample sizes are indicated within each bar. Data from each age were obtained from separate cohorts of animals. Genotypes with differing letters differ significantly from each other (p < 0.05, Fisher’s PLSD). See Results for ANOVA details.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Hom Brattleboro juveniles emit fewer 50 kHz USVs. A–C, Number of all (A), 50 kHz (B), and 22 kHz (C) USVs of male and female Hom, Het, and WT rats during the first 10 min of a 20 min test at P34 or P44. Sample sizes are indicated within each bar. Data from each age were obtained from separate cohorts of animals. Genotypes with differing letters differ significantly from each other (p < 0.05, Fisher’s PLSD); where differences approach significance, the p value is included in parentheses next to the letter representing the appropriate comparison. See Results for ANOVA details.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Ultrasonic vocalization call types emitted during social behavior testing. A, Percentage of USV call types, as defined by Wright et al. (2010), emitted by male and female Hom, Het, and WT juveniles (P34 or P44) during the first 10 min of a 20 min test; data are combined across sex, genotype, and age. B–G, Representative spectrograms of the most common 50 kHz calls [complex (B), upward-ramp (C), flat (D), step-up (E), and trill (F)] as well as the 22 kHz call (G).

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    The quantity and quality of USV calls is altered in Hom Brattleboro rats. A–O, number (A–E), integrated frequency (F–J), and duration (K–O) of type 1 (complex), type 2 (upward-ramp), type 4 (flat), type 7 (step-up), and type 10 (trill) USV calls of male and female Hom, Het, and WT rats during the first 10 min of a 20 min test at P34 or P44. Data from each age were obtained from separate cohorts of animals. Genotypes with differing letters differ significantly from each other (p < 0.05, Fisher’s PLSD); where differences approach significance, the p value is included in parentheses next to the letter representing the appropriate comparison. See Results for ANOVA details.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1:

    Experiment 1 statistical analyses

    Data structureDependent variableComparisonType of testp valuePower
    a1Non-normal distributionTotal playMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA, K-W<0.0001 (ANOVA and K-W)1.000
    a2Non-normal distributionMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA, K-W0.0310 (ANOVA), 0.0375 (K-W)0.649
    a3Non-normal distributionMain effect of sexThree-way ANOVA, M-W0.9342 (ANOVA), 0.3852 (M-W)0.051
    a4Non-normal distributionP17 vs P19M-W<0.00011.000
    a5Non-normal distributionP19 vs P21M-W<0.00011.000
    a6Non-normal distributionHom vs WTFisher's PLSD, M-W0.0024 (Fisher's), 0.0124 (M-W)0.804
    a7Non-normal distributionHom vs HetFisher's PLSD, M-W0.0079 (Fisher's), 0.043 (M-W)0.612
    a8Normal distributionMain effect of genotype, P21Two-way ANOVA0.00210.918
    a9Normal distributionHom vs WT, P21Fisher's PLSD0.00040.934
    a10Normal distributionHom vs Het, P21Fisher's PLSD0.06040.610
    a11Normal distributionHet vs WT, P21Fisher's PLSD0.03420.470
    a12Normal distributionMain effect of genotype, P23Two-way ANOVA0.05820.550
    a13Normal distributionHom vs WT, P23Fisher's PLSD0.08760.526
    a14Normal distributionHom vs Het, P23Fisher's PLSD0.01900.604
    a15Normal distributionMain effect of genotype, P19Two-way ANOVA0.6717 (ANOVA)0.110
    b1Non-normal distributionPinsMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA, K-W<0.0001 (ANOVA and K-W)1.000
    b2Non-normal distributionMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA, K-W0.0118 (ANOVA), 0.0046 (K-W)0.773
    b3Non-normal distributionMain effect of sexThree-way ANOVA, M-W0.9655 (ANOVA), 0.5681 (M-W)0.050
    b4Non-normal distributionP17 vs P19M-W<0.00011.000
    b5Non-normal distributionP19 vs P21M-W<0.00011.000
    b6Non-normal distributionHom vs WTFisher's PLSD, M-W0.0003 (Fisher's), 0.0015 (M-W)0.950
    b7Non-normal distributionHom vs HetFisher's PLSD, M-W0.0019 (Fisher's), 0.0085 (M-W)0.797
    b8Normal distributionMain effect of genotype, P21Two-way ANOVA0.00150.933
    b9Normal distributionHom vs WT, P21Fisher's PLSD0.00030.942
    b10Normal distributionHom vs Het, P21Fisher's PLSD0.04360.764
    b11Normal distributionHet vs WT, P21Fisher's PLSD0.03630.436
    b12Normal distributionMain effect of genotype, P23Two-way ANOVA0.02800.667
    b13Normal distributionHom vs WT, P23Fisher's PLSD0.03770.770
    b14Normal distributionHom vs Het, P23Fisher's PLSD0.00990.691
    b15Non-normal distributionMain effect of genotype, P19Two-way ANOVA, K-W0.3325 (ANOVA), 0.3213 (K-W)0.230
    c1Non-normal distributionPlay attacksMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA, K-W<0.0001 (ANOVA and K-W)1.000
    c2Non-normal distributionMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA, K-W0.0629 (ANOVA), 0.0887 (K-W)0.537
    c3Non-normal distributionMain effect of sexThree-way ANOVA, M-W0.9314 (ANOVA), 0.4056 (M-W)0.051
    c4Non-normal distributionP17 vs P19M-W<0.00011.000
    c5Non-normal distributionP19 vs P21M-W<0.00011.000
    c6Non-normal distributionHom vs WTFisher's PLSD, M-W0.0086 (Fisher's), 0.0318 (M-W)0.645
    • K-W, Kruskal–Wallis test; M-W, Mann–Whitney U test.

    • View popup
    Table 2:

    Experiment 2 statistical analyses

    Data structureDependent variableComparisonType of testp valuePower
    d1Normal distributionTotal playMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA<0.00010.997
    d2Normal distributionMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA<0.00011.000
    d3Normal distributionMain effect of sexThree-way ANOVA0.62590.076
    d4Normal distributionHom vs WTFisher's PLSD<0.00011.000
    d5Normal distributionHom vs HetFisher's PLSD<0.00011.000
    e1Non-normal distributionPinsMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA, M-W0.0041 (ANOVA), 0.0002 (M-W)0.843
    e2Non-normal distributionMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA, K-W0.0031 (ANOVA), <0.0001 (K-W)0.890
    e3Non-normal distributionMain effect of sexThree-way ANOVA, M-W0.9169 (ANOVA), 0.3571 (M-W)0.051
    e4Non-normal distributionHom vs WTFisher's PLSD, M-W0.0048 (Fisher's), <0.0001 (M-W)0.908
    e5Non-normal distributionHom vs HetFisher's PLSD, M-W0.0016 (Fisher's), <0.0001 (M-W)0.903
    e6Non-normal distributiongenotype x sex, P44Two-way ANOVA0.00760.826
    e7Normal distributionHet male vs Het female, P44Fisher's PLSD0.00190.921
    f1Normal distributionPlay attacksMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA<0.00010.999
    f2Normal distributionMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA<0.00011.000
    f3Normal distributionMain effect of sexThree-way ANOVA0.57300.085
    f4Normal distributionHom vs WTFisher's PLSD<0.00011.000
    f5Normal distributionHom vs HetFisher's PLSD<0.00011.000
    g1Normal distributionTotal social behaviorsMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA<0.00011.000
    g2Normal distributionMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA<0.00011.000
    g3Normal distributionMain effect of sexThree-way ANOVA0.88920.052
    g4Normal distributionHom vs WTFisher's PLSD<0.00011.000
    g5Normal distributionHom vs HetFisher's PLSD<0.00011.000
    h1Normal distributionSocial Investigation/allogroomingMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA0.00900.758
    h2Normal distributionMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA0.51370.156
    h3Normal distributionMain effect of sexThree-way ANOVA0.46310.109
    i1Non-normal distributionHuddlingMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA, M-W<0.0001 (ANOVA), 0.0001 (M-W)0.999
    i2Non-normal distributionMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA, K-W<0.0001 (ANOVA), <0.0001 (K-W)1.000
    i3Non-normal distributionMain effect of sexThree-way ANOVA, M-W0.8084 (ANOVA), 0.8321 (M-W)0.057
    i4Normal distributionHom vs WTFisher's PLSD, M-W<0.0001 (Fisher's), 0.0003 (M-W)0.948
    i5Non-normal distributionHom vs HetFisher's PLSD, M-W<0.0001 (Fisher's), <0.0001 (M-W)1.000
    j1Normal distributionAll USVsMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA<0.00010.993
    j2Normal distributionHom vs WTFisher's PLSD0.00200.942
    j3Normal distributionHom vs HetFisher's PLSD<0.00010.998
    k1Normal distribution50 kHz USVsMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA0.03800.537
    k2Normal distributionMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA0.00010.990
    k3Normal distributionHom vs WTFisher's PLSD0.00220.947
    k4Normal distributionHom vs HetFisher's PLSD<0.00010.996
    l1Non-normal distribution22 kHz USVsMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA, M-W0.0001 (ANOVA), <0.0001 (M-W)0.986
    l2Non-normal distributionMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA, K-W0.2541 (ANOVA), 0.2262 (K-W)0.282
    • K-W, Kruskal–Wallis test; M-W, Mann–Whitney U test.

    • View popup
    Table 3:

    USV call type statistical analyses

    Data structureDependent variableComparisonType of testExact p valuePower
    m1Normal distributionComplex callsMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA0.13490.304
    m2Normal distribution(Number)Main effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA0.02580.676
    m3Normal distributionHom vs WTFisher's PLSD0.03030.594
    m4Normal distributionHom vs HetFisher's PLSD0.01160.796
    m5Normal distributionMain effect of genotype, P34Two-way ANOVA0.16030.366
    m6Normal distributionMain effect of genotype, P44Two-way ANOVA0.15870.367
    n1Normal distributionUpward-ramp callsMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA0.00280.875
    n2Normal distribution(Number)Main effect of genotype, P34Two-way ANOVA0.01850.725
    n3Normal distributionHom vs WT, P34Fisher's PLSD0.01120.724
    n4Normal distributionHom vs Het, P34Fisher's PLSD0.01630.755
    n5Normal distributionMain effect of genotype, P44Two-way ANOVA0.63220.120
    o1Normal distributionFlat callsMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA0.84190.054
    o2Normal distribution(Number)Main effect of genotype, P34Two-way ANOVA0.02700.673
    o3Normal distributionHom vs WT, P34Fisher's PLSD0.05740.520
    o4Normal distributionHom vs Het, P34Fisher's PLSD0.00560.832
    o5Normal distributionMain effect of genotype, P44Two-way ANOVA0.55380.141
    p1Normal distributionStep-up callsMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA0.03550.549
    p2Normal distribution(Number)Main effect of genotype, P34Two-way ANOVA0.00580.850
    p3Normal distributionHom vs WT, P34Fisher's PLSD0.00840.857
    p4Normal distributionHom vs Het, P34Fisher's PLSD0.00220.918
    p5Normal distributionMain effect of genotype, P44Two-way ANOVA0.05430.562
    q1Non-normal distributionTrillsMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA, M-W0.0144 (ANOVA), 0.0025 (M-W)0.694
    q2Non-normal distribution(Number)Main effect of sexThree-way ANOVA, K-W0.0046 (ANOVA), <0.0001 (K-W)0.830
    q3Normal distributionMain effect of genotype, P34Two-way ANOVA0.00920.807
    q4Normal distributionHom vs WT, P34Fisher's PLSD0.09780.789
    q5Normal distributionHom vs Het, P34Fisher's PLSD0.00450.746
    q6Normal distributionMain effect of genotype, P44Two-way ANOVA0.00090.954
    q7Normal distributionHom vs WT, P44Fisher's PLSD0.03000.887
    q8Normal distributionHom vs Het, P44Fisher's PLSD0.00050.923
    r1Normal distributionComplex callsMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA0.01420.754
    r2Normal distribution(Int. Freq.)Hom vs WTFisher's PLSD0.10430.414
    r3Normal distributionHom vs HetFisher's PLSD0.00530.703
    r4Normal distributionMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA<0.00010.999
    r5Normal distributionage x sexThree-way ANOVA0.94310.059
    s1Normal distributionUpward-ramp callsMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA0.00020.986
    s2Normal distribution(Int. Freq.)Hom vs WTFisher's PLSD0.00070.936
    s3Normal distributionHom vs HetFisher's PLSD<0.00010.990
    s4Normal distributionMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA<0.00010.994
    s5Normal distributionage x sexThree-way ANOVA0.69400.106
    t1Normal distributionFlat callsMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA0.00200.916
    t2Normal distribution(Int. Freq.)Hom vs WTFisher's PLSD0.00220.930
    t3Normal distributionHom vs HetFisher's PLSD0.00140.825
    t4Normal distributionMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA<0.00010.999
    t5Normal distributionage x sexThree-way ANOVA0.82550.079
    u1Normal distributionStep-up callsMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA0.01860.721
    u2Normal distribution(Int. Freq.)Hom vs WTFisher's PLSD0.04160.531
    u3Normal distributionHom vs HetFisher's PLSD0.00660.706
    u4Normal distributionMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA0.04160.521
    u5Normal distributionage x sexThree-way ANOVA0.05880.548
    v1Normal distributionTrillsMain effect of genotypeThree-way ANOVA0.24520.288
    v2Normal distribution(Int. Freq.)Main effect of ageThree-way ANOVA0.18010.252
    w1Normal distributionStep-up callsMain effect of genotype, P44Two-way ANOVA0.00260.908
    w2Normal distribution(Dur.)Hom vs WT, P44Fisher's PLSD0.01950.592
    w3Normal distributionHom vs Het, P44Fisher's PLSD0.00060.947
    w4Normal distributionMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA0.24800.198
    x1Normal distributionTrillsMain effect of genotype, P44Two-way ANOVA0.00900.810
    x2Normal distribution(Dur.)Hom vs WT, P44Fisher's PLSD0.00400.799
    x3Normal distributionHet vs WT, P44Fisher's PLSD0.01570.659
    x4Normal distributionHom vs Het, P44Fisher's PLSD0.26320.213
    x5Normal distributionMain effect of ageThree-way ANOVA0.10100.357
    y1Normal distributionComplex calls (Dur.)Main effect of ageThree-way ANOVA0.02100.638
    z1Normal distributionUpward-ramp calls (Dur.)Main effect of ageThree-way ANOVA0.00780.775
    aa1Normal distributionFlat calls (Dur.)Main effect of ageThree-way ANOVA0.00360.854
    • K-W, Kruskal–Wallis test; M-W, Mann–Whitney U test.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 3 (2)
eNeuro
Vol. 3, Issue 2
March/April 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Atypical Social Development in Vasopressin-Deficient Brattleboro Rats
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Atypical Social Development in Vasopressin-Deficient Brattleboro Rats
Matthew J. Paul, Nicole V. Peters, Mary K. Holder, Anastasia M. Kim, Jack Whylings, Joseph I. Terranova, Geert J. de Vries
eNeuro 24 March 2016, 3 (2) ENEURO.0150-15.2016; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0150-15.2016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Atypical Social Development in Vasopressin-Deficient Brattleboro Rats
Matthew J. Paul, Nicole V. Peters, Mary K. Holder, Anastasia M. Kim, Jack Whylings, Joseph I. Terranova, Geert J. de Vries
eNeuro 24 March 2016, 3 (2) ENEURO.0150-15.2016; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0150-15.2016
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • play behavior
  • postnatal development
  • social behavior
  • ultrasonic vocalizations
  • vasopressin

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • Postnatal development of projections of the postrhinal cortex to the entorhinal cortex in the rat
  • Visual System Hyperexcitability and Compromised V1 Receptive Field Properties in Early-Stage Retinitis Pigmentosa in Mice
  • Enhancement of motor cortical gamma oscillations and sniffing activity by medial forebrain bundle stimulation precedes locomotion
Show more New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • Enhancement of motor cortical gamma oscillations and sniffing activity by medial forebrain bundle stimulation precedes locomotion
  • The Epigenetics of Anxiety Pathophysiology: A DNA Methylation and Histone Modification Focused Review
  • EEG Signals Index a Global Signature of Arousal Embedded in Neuronal Population Recordings
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior

  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.