CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 498Memory and Neural MechanismsSpatial Cognition and NavigationMemory Processes and Influences

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 111 of the 111 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meta-analysis of sex differences in rodent models of learning and memory: a review of behavioral and biological data

Jonasson, Zachariah·2005·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.10.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The existence of sex differences in the standard rat and mouse models of learning and memory is a controversial and contested topic in the literature. The present meta-analysis of radial maze and water maze experiments was conducted to assess the reliablility and magnitude of sex effects in the standard rodent models of learning and memory. Data were culled from published and unpublished sources. Findings indicate large reliable male advantages for rats in radial maze and water maze protocols. Significant strain differences were also identified. In each paradigm, protocol variations were associated with differential sex effects. For the water maze, smaller male advantages were associated with pretraining regimens and for the radial maze, larger significant male advantages were observed in protocols that included unbaited arms (combined reference and working memory protocols). Mouse studies exhibited a different pattern of sex effects; small female advantages were evident in the water maze, but small male advantages were evident in the radial maze. Together these findings establish the reliability of male advantages in spatial working and reference memory for rats across strains, protocols, ages and rearing environments. The findings also support an important species dichotomy between rats and mice that should be considered when transitioning from rat to mouse models. In light of these results, the biological evidence supporting theoretical explanations of sex differences is reviewed and evaluated.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.10.006

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 498

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Jonasson, Z.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Jonasson, Zachariah
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-01
Volume
28
Issue
8
Pages
811-825
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.10.006
OpenAlex
W2086252264
Cited by
498
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 26
FWCI
1.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Harvard University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
sex differences, learning and memory, spatial memory, radial maze, water maze, rats, mice, strain differences, working memory, reference memory, pre-training, species differences, rearing conditions, age effects
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Learning, Memory, Rodentia, Sex Characteristics, Maze Learning, Models, Animal

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