Cited by 476Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

On the delay-dependent involvement of the hippocampus in object recognition memory

HAMMOND, R·2004·Neurobiology of Learning and Memory

Abstract

The role of the hippocampus in object recognition memory processes is unclear in the current literature. Conflicting results have been found in lesion studies of both primates and rodents. Procedural differences between studies, such as retention interval, may explain these discrepancies. In the present study, acute lidocaine administration was used to temporarily inactivate the hippocampus prior to training in the spontaneous object recognition task. Male C57BL/6J mice were administered bilateral lidocaine (4%, 0.5 microl/side) or aCSF (0.5 microl/side) directly into the CA1 region of the dorsal hippocampus 5 min prior to sample object training, and object recognition memory was tested after a short ( 5 min) or long (24 h) retention interval. There was no effect of intra-hippocampal lidocaine on the time needed for mice to accumulate sample object exploration, suggesting that inactivation of the hippocampus did not affect sample session activity or the motivation to explore objects. Lidocaine-treated mice exhibited impaired object recognition memory, measured as reduced novel object preference, after a 24 h but not a 5 min retention interval. These data support a delay-dependent role for the hippocampus in object recognition memory, an effect consistent with the results of hippocampal lesion studies conducted in rats. However, these data are also consistent with the view that the hippocampus is involved in object recognition memory regardless of retention interval, and that object recognition processes of parahippocampal structures (e.g., perirhinal cortex) are sufficient to support object recognition memory over short retention intervals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nlm.2004.03.005

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
HAMMOND, R.
Affiliations
Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
HAMMOND, R
Venue
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-07
Volume
82
Issue
1
Pages
26-34
ISSN
1074-7427 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2012482368
Cited by
476
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 20
FWCI
6.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neurobiology of Learning and Memory (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (T32DA007262, 5T32 DA07262)
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
hippocampus, object recognition memory, retention interval, lidocaine inactivation, CA1, novel object preference, perirhinal cortex, mice
MeSH terms
Anesthetics, Local, Animals, Exploratory Behavior, Form Perception, Hippocampus, Lidocaine, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Microinjections, Reaction Time, Time Factors, Recognition, Psychology, Mice

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