Cited by 158Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 447 of the 447 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 16 of the 526 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

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

Open access
Chao, Owen Y., de Souza Silva, Maria A., Yang, Yi-Mei, Huston, Joseph P.·2020·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Rats and mice have been demonstrated to show episodic-like memory, a prototype of episodic memory, as defined by an integrated memory of the experience of an object or event, in a particular place and time. Such memory can be assessed via the use of spontaneous object exploration paradigms, variably designed to measure memory for object, place, temporal order and object-location inter-relationships. We review the methodological properties of these tests, the neurobiology about time and discuss the evidence for the involvement of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), entorhinal cortex (EC) and hippocampus, with respect to their anatomy, neurotransmitter systems and functional circuits. The systematic analysis suggests that a specific circuit between the mPFC, lateral EC and hippocampus encodes the information for event, place and time of occurrence into the complex episodic-like memory, as a top-down regulation from the mPFC onto the hippocampus. This circuit can be distinguished from the neuronal component memory systems for processing the individual information of object, time and place.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review synthesizes evidence that rodents show episodic-like memory—integrated memory for what, where, and when—measured by training-free spontaneous object exploration paradigms. It proposes that a specific mPFC–lateral entorhinal cortex–hippocampus circuit, especially direct mPFC–CA1/CA3 pathways, integrates object, place, and time information, distinct from the component memory systems.

Key findings

  • Episodic-like memory tests combine novel object preference (what), object place preference (where), and temporal-order memory (when). In the ELM2–2 test, adult rats show exploration preferences RD > RS, OS > RS, and OS > OD; ELM2–2 memory is preserved for at least 1 hour, over 2 hours, but not after 4–6 hours, while ELM2–1 memory can last up to 24 hours.
  • Disconnecting the mPFC–CA3 circuit impaired ELM2–2 episodic-like memory while leaving individual NOP, OPP, and TOM memories intact, indicating that episodic-like memory is a meta-system integrating what, where, and when rather than a simple sum of the components. Disconnecting mPFC–CA1 impaired integration and OPP but spared NOP and TOM; disconnecting mPFC–LEC also impaired ELM2–2.
  • The proposed circuit includes direct and indirect mPFC–hippocampus pathways: posterior-dorsal CA1-to-PFC projections support the “when” component, intermediate CA1-to-PFC projections support the “where” component, and CA1/CA3 are cardinal for integration.
  • Neurotransmitter systems in mPFC and hippocampus (glutamate, dopamine, serotonin, acetylcholine, histamine, norepinephrine, cannabinoids) differentially modulate NOP, OPP, TOM, and episodic-like memory; for example, mPFC AMPA/kainate but not NMDA receptors are involved in episodic-like memory.

Methods

  • Design: narrative review of behavioral, anatomical, and neurochemical evidence on episodic-like memory in rodents, focusing on training-free spontaneous object exploration paradigms (NOP, OPP, TOM, SNOP, OiP, and ELM variants).
  • Data/sample: published rodent studies, primarily articles published after 2007; the review excludes context-manipulated object exploration tests such as What-Where-Which and excludes systemic, intracerebroventricular, or global gene-manipulation studies.
  • Analysis: qualitative synthesis comparing lesion, inactivation, disconnection, electrophysiological, pharmacological, imaging, and molecular findings, with summary tables and circuit diagrams.

Limitations

  • Stated: NOP alone is not an appropriate measure of episodic-like memory; methodological factors such as habituation, object exploration duration, object properties, retention interval, circadian phase, and light intensity can confound object exploration tests.
  • Stated: many lesion studies used retention intervals under 10 minutes, and the direction of information flow in disconnection studies is hard to ascertain because connections are ablated; precise circuit control such as optogenetics is needed.
  • Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it does not describe a systematic search or meta-analysis, and its conclusions depend on heterogeneous paradigms, species/strains, and separate studies rather than uniform within-study comparisons.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.04.007

Cites

447 of 447 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

376 Not checked yet · 104 Own interpretation · 7 Supported · 4 Supported so far · 3 No basis given · 2 Own method · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 509 references — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 167
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 21
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
179 of 179
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    All behaviors are motivated and guided by positive and negative outcomes (reinforcers).

    “However, all behaviors are “motivated” and guided by positive and negative outcomes (reinforcers).”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The methodological factors in the NOP test apply to the TOM test.

    “The methodological factors in the NOP test are suggested to apply to the TOM test as well.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The TOM test is designed for animals to remember both sets of objects while forming differential memory decay for each one.

    “The TOM test is designed for animals to remember both sets of objects, while forming differential memory decay for each one.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The rodent behavioral tasks used in the cited studies (NOP, OPP, ELM2-1, ELM2-2, etc.) validly measure the cognitive constructs they are said to measure, including episodic-like memory.

    “episodic-like memory”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    If two brain areas interact for a specific function, disrupting one of the areas in one hemisphere combined with a simultaneous disruption of the other area in the opposite hemisphere should lead to a functional deficit.

    “The basic proposition of the disconnection approach is that, if two brain areas interact for a specific function, disrupting one of the areas in one hemisphere combined with a simultaneous disruption of the other area in the opposite hemisphere (i.e. disconnecting the circuit at two different levels) should lead to a functional deficit.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    An impairment of one of the components (what, where, when) should cause a failure of episodic memory.

    “given that, by logic, an impairment of one of the components should cause a failure of episodic memory.”
6 of 6

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.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 447 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 158

Metadata

Authors
Chao, O. Y., de Souza Silva, M. A., Yang, Y.-M., & Huston, J. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Yang, Yi-Mei
  • Huston, Joseph P.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
113
Pages
373-407
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3015373542
Cited by
158
References
447
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 6
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
medial prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, episodic-like memory, object memory, spatial memory, temporal memory, memory circuits, top-down control, neurotransmitter systems, rodents
MeSH terms
Animals, Exploratory Behavior, Hippocampus, Neural Pathways, Rodentia, Prefrontal Cortex, Recognition, Psychology, Mice, Rats, Memory, Episodic

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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