Cited by 140Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms

The role of the hippocampus in object recognition in rats: examination of the influence of task parameters and lesion size

Ainge, James A, Heron-Maxwell, Claire, Theofilas, Panos, Wright, Paul, de Hoz, Livia, Wood, Emma R·2006·Behavioural Brain Research

Abstract

Studies examining the effects of hippocampal lesions on object recognition memory in rats have produced conflicting results. The present study investigated how methodological differences and lesion size may have contributed to these discrepancies. In Experiment 1 we compared rats with complete, partial (septal) and sham hippocampal lesions on a spontaneous object recognition task, using a protocol previously reported to result in deficits following large hippocampal lesions . Rats with complete and partial hippocampal lesions were unimpaired, suggesting the hippocampus is not required for object recognition memory. However, rats with partial lesions showed relatively poor performance raising the possibility that floor effects masked a deficit on this group. In Experiment 2, we used a second spontaneous object recognition protocol similar to that used by the two other studies that have reported deficits following hippocampal lesions . Rats with complete hippocampal lesions were significantly impaired, whereas rats with partial lesions were unimpaired. However, the complete lesion group showed less object exploration during the sample phase. Thus, the apparent recognition memory deficit in Experiment 2 may be attributable to differential encoding. Together, these findings suggest that the hippocampus is not required for intact spontaneous object recognition memory. These findings suggest that levels of object exploration during the sample phase may be a critical issue, and raise the possibility that previous reports of object recognition deficits may be due to differences in object exploration rather than deficits in object recognition per se.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bbr.2005.09.005

Cites

55 of 55 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
Ainge, J. A., Heron-Maxwell, C., Theofilas, P., Wright, P., de Hoz, L., & Wood, E. R.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Wood, Emma R
Venue
Behavioural Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-02
Volume
167
Issue
1
Pages
183-195
ISSN
0166-4328 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1986886791
Cited by
140
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
3.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioural Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Medical Research Council
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Keywords
hippocampus, object recognition memory, hippocampal lesions, object exploration, floor effect, differential encoding
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Brain Injuries, Choice Behavior, Exploratory Behavior, Hippocampus, Ibotenic Acid, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Random Allocation, Reaction Time, Time Factors, Maze Learning, Recognition, Psychology, 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