Cited by 57Memory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory Processes and Influences

Hippocampal neurotransmitter efflux during one-trial novel object recognition in rats

Open access
Stanley, Emily M., Wilson, Marlene A., Fadel, Jim R.·2012·Neuroscience Letters

Abstract

Several lines of evidence point to a role for the hippocampal formation and contiguous temporal lobe structures in a variety of learning and memory paradigms. Presumably, these cognitive phenomena are mediated (and accompanied) by dynamic changes in neurochemical transmission that may differ between learning and recall phases. However, the neurotransmitter correlates of most memory-related tasks have not been thoroughly investigated. Here we used a one-trial object recognition paradigm paired with in vivo microdialysis to assess hippocampal acetylcholine (ACh), glutamate and GABA efflux when rats were exposed to familiar objects, and when given the option to explore familiar and novel objects. Rats preferentially explored the novel object over the familiar one when presented with the option. Regardless of object familiarity, object exploration was accompanied by an increase in hippocampal ACh efflux, while GABA efflux was unaffected. However, glutamate efflux was not increased above baseline levels by presentation of familiar objects, but was significantly enhanced in the presence of the novel object. These data suggest that the hippocampus, and in particular, hippocampal glutamate, may be involved in memory processes during novelty recognition paradigms.

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.neulet.2012.01.033

Cites

28 of 28 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
Stanley, E. M., Wilson, M. A., & Fadel, J. R.
Affiliations
University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Fadel, Jim R.
Venue
Neuroscience Letters
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-03
Volume
511
Issue
1
Pages
38-42
ISSN
0304-3940 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2009011613
Cited by
57
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R01AG030646)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
hippocampus, novel object recognition, acetylcholine, glutamate, GABA, memory, object recognition memory, hippocampal formation, in vivo microdialysis
MeSH terms
Acetylcholine, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Exploratory Behavior, gamma-Aminobutyric Acid, Hippocampus, Male, Memory, Rats, Inbred F344, Microdialysis, Neurotransmitter Agents, Glutamic Acid, 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