Cited by 49Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesSpatial Cognition and Navigation

Spatial and stimulus-type tuning in the LEC, MEC, POR, PrC, CA1, and CA3 during spontaneous item recognition memory: Spatial and Stimulus-Type Tunings in Recognition Memory

Beer, Zachery, Chwiesko, Caroline, Kitsukawa, Takashi, Sauvage, Magdalena M.·2013·Hippocampus

Abstract

According to the "two streams" hypothesis, the lateral entorhinal (LEC) and the perirhinal (PrC) cortices process information related to items (a "what" stream), the postrhinal (POR) and the medial entorhinal cortices (MEC) process spatial information (a "where" stream), and both types of information are integrated in the hippocampus (HIP). However, within the framework of memory function, only the HIP is reliably shown to preferentially process spatial information, and the PrC items' features. In contrast, the role of the LEC and MEC in memory is virtually unexplored, and conflicting results emerge for the POR. Moreover, the specific contribution of the hippocampal subfields CA1 and CA3 to spatial and non-spatial memory is not thoroughly understood. To investigate which of these areas is specifically tuned to spatial demands or stimulus identity (odor or object), we assessed the pattern of activation of these areas during recognition memory by detecting the immediate-early gene Arc, commonly used as a marker of neuronal activation. We report that all MTL areas were recruited during the spatial and the non-spatial tasks. However, the LEC, MEC, POR, and CA1 were activated to a comparable level in spatial and non-spatial tasks, while the PrC was tuned to stimulus-type, not spatial demands, and CA3 to spatial demands but not stimulus-type. Results are discussed within the frame of a recent model suggesting that the MTL could be segregated in terms of memory processes, such as recollection and familiarity, rather than information content.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hipo.22195

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beer, Z., Chwiesko, C., Kitsukawa, T., & Sauvage, M. M.
Affiliations
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
  • The University of Osaka (JP)
Corresponding author
Sauvage, Magdalena M.
Venue
Hippocampus
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-09-18
Volume
23
Issue
12
Pages
1425-1438
ISSN
1050-9631 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1606464716
Cited by
49
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Hippocampus (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
Keywords
recognition memory, spatial memory, lateral entorhinal cortex, medial entorhinal cortex, perirhinal cortex, postrhinal cortex, hippocampal CA1, hippocampal CA3, medial temporal lobe
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Animals, Cytoskeletal Proteins, Gene Expression Regulation, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Nerve Tissue Proteins, Neural Pathways, Space Perception, Signal Transduction, Entorhinal Cortex, Recognition, Psychology, Mice

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