Cited by 133Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesChild and Animal Learning Development

Object familiarization and novel-object preference in rats

Gaskin, Stephane, Tardif, Marilyn, Cole, Emily, Piterkin, Pavel, Kayello, Lima, Mumby, Dave G.·2010·Behavioural Processes

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.10.003

Cites

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?

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
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