Cited by 670Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesSpatial Cognition and Navigation

Spontaneous object recognition and object location memory in rats: the effects of lesions in the cingulate cortices, the medial prefrontal cortex, the cingulum bundle and the fornix

Ennaceur, A., Neave, Nick, Aggleton, John P.·1997·Experimental Brain Research

Abstract

The first experiment assessed the effects of neurotoxic lesions in either the anterior cingulate cortex (ACc) or the retrosplenial cortex (RSc) on a test of object recognition. Neither lesion affected performance on this task, which takes advantage of the rat's normal preference to spend more time investigating novel rather than familiar stimuli. In response to this negative result, a second experiment assessed the effects of much more extensive cingulate lesions (Cg) on both object recognition and object location memory. The latter task also used a preference measure, but in this case it concerned preference for a novel location. For comparison purposes this second study included groups of rats with lesions in closely allied regions: the fornix (Fx), the cingulum bundle (CB) and the medial prefrontal cortex (Pfc). Comparisons with sham-operated control rats showed that none of the four groups (Cg, Fx, CB, Pfc) was impaired on the object recognition task, adding further weight to the view that these structures are not necessary for assessing stimulus familiarity. The Fx and Cg groups were, however, impaired on the object location task, suggesting that these regions are necessary for remembering other attributes of a stimulus (spatial location).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/pl00005603

Cites

50 of 50 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
Ennaceur, A., Neave, N., & Aggleton, J. P.
Affiliations
  • Durham University (GB)
  • University of Wales (GB)
Venue
Experimental Brain Research
Published
1997-03-17
Volume
113
Issue
3
Pages
509-519
ISSN
0014-4819 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059215368
Cited by
670
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 48
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Experimental Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Sunderland Repository (University of Sunderland) (acceptedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
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
object recognition memory, object location memory, cingulate cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, retrosplenial cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, cingulum, fornix, neurotoxic lesion, novel object preference, spatial memory, rats
MeSH terms
Animals, Gyrus Cinguli, Male, Memory, Prefrontal Cortex, Rats

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