Cited by 22Prenatal Substance Exposure EffectsSmoking Behavior and CessationAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research

Visual recognition memory and auditory brainstem response in infant rhesus monkeys exposed perinatally to environmental tobacco smoke

Golub, Mari S., Slotkin, Theodore A., Tarantal, Alice F., Pinkerton, Kent E.·2007·Brain Research

Abstract

The impact of perinatal exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) on cognitive development is controversial. We exposed rhesus monkeys to ETS or filtered air (5 animals per group) beginning in utero on day 50 of pregnancy and continuing throughout postnatal testing. In infancy, we evaluated both groups for visual recognition memory and auditory function (auditory brainstem response). The ETS group showed significantly less novelty preference in the visual recognition task whereas no effects on auditory function were detected. These preliminary results support the view that perinatal ETS exposure has adverse effects on cognitive function and indicate further that rhesus monkeys may provide a valuable nonhuman primate model for investigating this link.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.001

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Golub, M. S., Slotkin, T. A., Tarantal, A. F., & Pinkerton, K. E.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Pinkerton, Kent E.
Venue
Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-06
Volume
1151
Pages
102-106
ISSN
0006-8993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2048573021
Cited by
22
References
3
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Philip Morris International
  • University of California, Davis
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R01ES011634, ES 011634, ES05707)
  • National Center for Research Resources (P51RR000169, RR-00169)
  • California National Primate Research Center
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Anesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research
Keywords
environmental tobacco smoke, perinatal exposure, rhesus monkeys, visual recognition memory, novelty preference, auditory brainstem response, auditory function, cognitive development, prenatal exposure, nonhuman primate model
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Animals, Animals, Newborn, Female, Macaca mulatta, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Pregnancy, Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects, Tobacco Smoke Pollution, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem

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