Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 410

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hippocampus, time, and memory.

Meck, Warren H., Church, Russell M., Olton, David S.·2013·Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Five experiments were conducted to determine the effects of hippocampal damage on timing and the memory for temporal events. In Experiments 1-3, rats were trained to discriminate between auditory signals that differed in both duration (2 or 8 s) and rate (2 or 16 cycles/s). Half of the rats were trained to discriminate duration, and half were trained to discriminate rate. After rats acquired the relevant discrimination, signals with intermediate durations and rates were presented to obtain psychophysical functions that related signal duration and/or rate to response choice. Rats then received either lesions of the fimbria-fornix or control operations. Postoperatively, the accuracy of duration and rate discriminations as measured by the difference limen (DL) was unaffected by the lesion, but the point of subjective equality (PSE) was shifted to a shorter duration and a slower rate by the lesion in Experiment 1. Both rats with lesions and rats with control operations showed cross-modal transfer of duration and rate from the auditory signals used in training to visual signals used in testing in Experiment 2. A 5-s delay was imposed between the end of a signal and the opportunity to respond in Experiment 3. The delay served as a retention interval for the rats trained in the rate discrimination, and the rats with fimbria-fornix lesions were selectively impaired by the addition of the delay as measured by an increase in the DL. The delay did not serve as a retention interval for rats trained in the duration discrimination because they were able to continue timing through the delay. A peak procedure was employed in Experiment 4. The maximum response rate of control rats was approximately at the time of scheduled reinforcement (20 s), but the maximum response rate of rats with fimbria-fornix lesions was reliably earlier than the time of scheduled reinforcement. When a 5-s gap was imposed in the signal, control rats summed the signal durations before and after the gap, whereas rats with fimbria-fornix lesions showed no retention of the signal duration prior to the gap. Experiment 5 continued the testing of the rats used in Experiments 1-4 and showed that rats with lesions had an impairment in a test of spatial working memory in an eight-arm radial maze. Taken together, these results demonstrate that a fimbria-fornix lesion interferes with temporal and spatial working memory, reduces the remembered time of reinforcement stored in reference memory, and has no effect on the animal's sensitivity to stimulus duration.

Overview

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 · 10.1037/a0034188

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 410

Metadata

Authors
Meck, W. H., Church, R. M., & Olton, D. S.
Venue
Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2013
Volume
127
Issue
5
Pages
655-668
ISSN
  • 0735-7044 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0084
OpenAlex
W1978107420
Cited by
410
References
2
FWCI
8.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hippocampus, time, and memory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0034188
The paper
Meck, W. H., Church, R. M., & Olton, D. S. (2013). Hippocampus, time, and memory. Behavioral Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034188

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.