Cited by 342

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Examining Object Location and Object Recognition Memory in Mice

Vogel‐Ciernia, Annie, Wood, Marcelo A.·2014·Current Protocols in Neuroscience

Abstract

This unit is designed to provide sufficient instruction for the setup and execution of tests for object location and object recognition in adult mice. This task is ideally suited for the study of a variety of mouse models that examine disease mechanisms and novel therapeutic targets. By altering several key parameters, the experimenter can investigate short‐term or long‐term memory and look for either memory impairments or enhancements. Object location and object recognition memory tasks rely on a rodent's innate preference for novelty, and can be conducted sequentially in the same cohort of animals. These two tasks avoid the inherent stress induced with other common measures of rodent memory such as fear conditioning and the Morris water maze. This protocol covers detailed instructions on conducting both tasks, as well as key points concerning data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Curr. Protoc. Neurosci . 69:8.31.1‐8.31.17. © 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/0471142301.ns0831s69

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mice that accumulated less than 10 s of total exploration time across both objects during the training session were excluded from subsequent analyses.

    “Mice that accumulated less than 10 s of total exploration time across both objects during the training session were excluded from subsequent analyses53.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. 10.1093/cercor/bhj114 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.06.005 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1101/lm.1028008 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1038/npp.2011.61 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1101/lm.97605 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2004.00109.x · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.01.005 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/S0166-4328(98)00079-5 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.12.036 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1016/j.nlm.2008.12.009 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1101/lm.026385.112 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5052-10.2011 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1016/S0166-4328(01)00367-9 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.09.013 · DOI
  15. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5717-09.2010 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1101/lm.422607 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1073/pnas.0903964106 · DOI
  18. 10.1038/nn.3359 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2011.07.007 · DOI
  20. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3827-04.2005 · DOI
  21. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1346-04.2004 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.04.004 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Vogel‐Ciernia, A., & Wood, M. A.
Affiliations
Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, University of California Irvine, Irvine California
Venue
Current Protocols in Neuroscience
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-10
Volume
69
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1934-8584
  • 1934-8576
Cited by
342
References
3
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review