Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 388

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Memory engram storage and retrieval

Open access
Tonegawa, Susumu, Pignatelli, Michele, Roy, Dheeraj S, Ryan, Tomás J·2015·Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Abstract

A great deal of experimental investment is directed towards questions regarding the mechanisms of memory storage. Such studies have traditionally been restricted to investigation of the anatomical structures, physiological processes, and molecular pathways necessary for the capacity of memory storage, and have avoided the question of how individual memories are stored in the brain. Memory engram technology allows the labeling and subsequent manipulation of components of specific memory engrams in particular brain regions, and it has been established that cell ensembles labeled by this method are both sufficient and necessary for memory recall. Recent research has employed this technology to probe fundamental questions of memory consolidation, differentiating between mechanisms of memory retrieval from the true neurobiology of memory storage.

Overview

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.conb.2015.07.009

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 388

Metadata

Authors
Tonegawa, S., Pignatelli, M., Roy, D. S., & Ryan, T. J.
Venue
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-12
Volume
35
Pages
101-109
ISSN
0959-4388 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1178553251
Cited by
388
References
10
FWCI
2.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.