目的：探讨兴奋毒性脑损伤模型小鼠神经行为功能改变情况，为围生期脑损伤的神经保护研究提供新的实验方法。方法：生后5日ICR种小鼠55只，采用完全随机的方法分为空白组、生理盐水组和鹅膏蕈氨酸（ibotenic acid，IA）组，用IA建立兴奋毒性脑损伤模型，小鼠生后第6，7，8，9，10日进行平面翻正实验、生后第8，10，12日进行游泳实验、生后第33和34日进行Y-迷宫分辨学习实验。结果：IA组小鼠生后第6～10日翻正实验时间为2.12±0.61、1.86±0.65、1.50±0.51、1.28±0.29、1.01±0.15，明显长于空白组和生理盐水组（P<0.05），生后第8～12日游泳实验评分为6.33±0.98、6.87±0.74、7.13±0.64，明显低于空白组和生理盐水组（P<0.05）；IA组Y-迷宫分辨学习实验“学会”次数为19.79±2.42，明显多于空白组和生理盐水组的 16.29±2.48，16.30±2.37（P<0.05）、正确反应率86.7%，明显低于空白组和生理盐水组的96.5%，95.0%（P<0.05）。结论：新生小鼠兴奋毒性脑损伤模型发育反射和学习记忆功能都受到损伤，可以用行为学的方法对兴奋毒性脑损伤小鼠早期发育反射和远期行为进行评估。［中国当代儿科杂志，2009，11（3）：191-193］

OBJECTIVE: To assess the changes of neurobehavioral function in a neonatal mouse model of excitotoxic brain damage. METHODS: Fifty-five 5-day-old ICR neonatal mice were randomly assigned to three groups: blank (no intravenous) control (n=20), saline control (n=20) and excitotoxic brain damage model (ibotenic acid treatment, n=15). Behavioral function was evaluated by the surface righting reflex test (postnatal days 6-10), the swimming test (postnatal days 8-12) and the Y-maze discrimination learning test (postnatal days 33-34). RESULTS: Righting time in the surface righting reflex test in the ibotenic acid treatment group on postnatal days 6-10 was more prolonged than that in the two control groups (P<0.05). Swimming test scores in the ibotenic acid treatment group were significantly lower than those in the two control groups (P<0.05). In the Y-maze discrimination learning test, the mice from the ibotenic acid treatment group performed significantly worse than two control groups, presenting with increased learning times (19.79±2.42 vs 16.29±2.48 or 16.30±2.37; P<0.05) and achieving a lower correct percentage (86.7% vs 96.5% or 95.0%) (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS:The developmental reflexes and learning and memory functions were impaired in neonatal mice following excitotoxic brain damage. Behavioral testing is useful in the evaluation of early developmental reflexes and long-term neurobehavioral outcome in neonatal mice with excitotoxic brain damage.［Chin J Contemp Pediatr, 2009, 11 (3):191-193］