Cited by 175Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Damage to the hippocampal formation in rats selectively impairs the ability to learn cue relationships

Sutherland, R.J., McDonald, R.J., Hill, C.R., Rudy, J.W.·1989·Behavioral and Neural Biology

Abstract

We assessed the contribution of the hippocampal formation to performance in tasks that require rats to respond to a relationship between discriminative stimuli. The first experiment employed a nonmatching-to-sample procedure in a Y-maze. Three pairs of boxes were used which differed in brightness of the walls and in the odors that they contained. The rats were trained prior to receiving kainic acid and colchicine-induced damage to the hippocampal formation or electrolytic damage to the amygdala. After surgery all rats performed the nonmatching-to-sample task accurately if both brightness and odor cues were present in the sample and choice boxes or if the boxes contained either visual cues alone or odor cues alone. If the available cue modality was different in sample and choice boxes, then the amygdala-damaged, but not the hippocampal-damaged, rats performed accurately. In the second experiment control rats or rats with hippocampal formation damage were trained postoperatively in a conditional black/white discrimination task in a Y-maze. Only the control group successfully learned to select the white arm if the start box was illuminated and the black arm if the start box was dark. Subsequently, both groups learned a simple black/white discrimination. The same rats were tested in the hidden platform version of the Morris water task and only the control group learned to swim accurately to the goal. Both groups learned to swim accurately to a visible black platform. The results are consistent with the notion that the hippocampal formation is essential to learning that involves control exerted by a configural relationship among cues, independently of the spatial or conditional requirements of tasks.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0163-1047(89)90457-3

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 44 · Cited by 175

Authors
Sutherland, R. J., McDonald, R. J., Hill, C. R., & Rudy, J. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Lethbridge (CA)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Corresponding author
Sutherland, R.J.
Venue
Behavioral and Neural Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1989-11
Volume
52
Issue
3
Pages
331-356
ISSN
0163-1047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2094032113
Cited by
175
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
11.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral and Neural Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
hippocampal formation, configural learning, Y-maze, kainic acid lesion, amygdala damage, olfactory cues, visual cues, black-white discrimination, Morris water task, spatial learning, rats
MeSH terms
Amygdala, Animals, Association Learning, Attention, Brain Mapping, Cues, Discrimination Learning, Form Perception, Hippocampus, Learning, Male, Memory, Orientation, Problem Solving, Mental Recall, Retention, 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