Object familiarization and novel-object preference in rats
Abstract
We investigated whether object familiarization was related to novel-object preference in the novel-object preference (NOP) test in rats. In Experiment 1, we found that no significant correlation existed between the time spent investigating 2 identical copies of a sample object and the degree of preference for a novel object. In Experiment 2, rats investigated 2 identical sample objects for a total of 5, 30, 60, 90 or 120s. Investigatory preference for the novel object was compared to chance expectancy as well as between the groups. Only the 90-s group and the 120-s group displayed above-chance investigatory preference for the novel object, but novel-object preference for these 2 groups did not differ from each other, suggesting that a minimal amount of sample object investigation is necessary for rats to develop a novel-object preference, beyond which no increase in novel-object preference was found. In Experiments 3 and 4, normal rats and rats with hippocampal lesions were given repeated test trials, with the same sample object presented with a different novel object, at 24-h and (Experiment 3) and 35-s intervals (Experiment 4). In both experiments, novel-object preference did not increase in magnitude with repeated sample object exposures, suggesting that increased familiarity with the sample object does not result in increased novel-object preference. Rats with lesions of the dorsal hippocampus showed an unreliable investigatory preference for the novel object. These results are discussed in terms of the potential limitations of the NOP test as a tool for the assessment of object-recognition memory in rats.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Once the minimum amount of exploration is reached, the level of exploration in the sample trial is not correlated with performance in the test trial.
“Once the minimum amount of exploration is reached, the level of exploration in the sample trial is not correlated with the performance in the test trial (Akkerman et al., 2012a; Gaskin et al., 2010).”
From The medial prefrontal cortex - hippocampus circuit that integrates information of object, place and time to construct episodic memory in rodents: Behavioral, anatomical and neurochemical properties (2020) · cites this paper as Gaskin et al., 2010
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 133
- Authors
- Gaskin, S., Tardif, M., Cole, E., Piterkin, P., Kayello, L., & Mumby, D. G.
- Affiliations
- Concordia University (CA)
- Venue
- Behavioural Processes
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 61-71
- ISSN
- 0376-6357 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2101843209
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 3.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Behavioural Processes (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Keywords
- novel object preference, object recognition memory, hippocampal lesions, dorsal hippocampus, repeated exposure, rats
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Behavior, Animal, Choice Behavior, Exploratory Behavior, Habituation, Psychophysiologic, Hippocampus, Male, Memory, Social Behavior, Rats, Long-Evans, 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