Cited by 176Neuroscience and Music PerceptionNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms

Enhanced cognitive flexibility in reversal learning induced by removal of the extracellular matrix in auditory cortex

Open access
Happel, Max F. K., Niekisch, Hartmut, Castiblanco Rivera, Laura L., Ohl, Frank W., Deliano, Matthias, Frischknecht, Renato·2014·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: The brain’s extracellular matrix (ECM) mediates structural stability by enwrapping synaptic contacts fundamental for long-term memory storage. Whether the ECM in the adult brain might thereby govern learning-related plasticity, lifelong memory reformation, and higher cognitive functions is largely unknown. Here, we enzymatically degraded the ECM in the auditory cortex of adult Mongolian gerbils during a reversal learning task. Such local weakening of the structurally rigid ECM specifically accelerated strategy changes required for reversal learning. It neither affected general sensory learning nor erased already established, learned memory traces. Thus, ECM modulation might promote the cognitive flexibility that can build on learned behaviors, and has further implications to develop new tools for guided neuroplasticity with therapeutic potential.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1310272111

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • In adult mammals, auditory learning is limited, but ECM digestion allows cortex-dependent auditory relearning to regain juvenile agility.

    “In adult mammalian life, auditory learning is limited, but cortex-dependent auditory relearning regains the agility of the juvenile state after ECM digestion [140] (Fig. 2F).”

    From The extracellular matrix and perineuronal nets in memory (2022) · cites this paper as [140]

    The Results and Discussion report that ECM digestion in the auditory cortex of adult Mongolian gerbils accelerated cortex-dependent auditory reversal learning. The paper does not compare their relearning with juvenile animals or establish that adult auditory learning is generally limited; it reports that ECM removal did not improve initial discrimination learning. Page numbers are not supplied in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • ChABC treatment promotes neuronal plasticity in different neocortical regions, such as the visual and auditory cortices.

    “This treatment promotes neuronal plasticity in different neocortical regions, such as the visual (Pizzorusso et al., 2002) and auditory cortices (Happel et al., 2014).”

    From Perineuronal Nets Regulate the Inhibitory Perisomatic Input onto Parvalbumin Interneurons and γ Activity in the Prefrontal Cortex (2020) · cites this paper as Happel et al., 2014

    The paper supports enhanced plasticity following extracellular-matrix removal in the auditory cortex, but its auditory-cortex experiments used hyaluronidase (HYase), not ChABC (Enhanced Reversal Learning of FM Discrimination After ECM Removal; Local Removal of the ECM in Adult ACx and Its Temporal Reappearance). The visual-cortex portion of the citing sentence is attributed to a different citation and is not judged here. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Happel, M. F. K., Niekisch, H., Castiblanco Rivera, L. L., Ohl, F. W., Deliano, M., & Frischknecht, R.
Affiliations
  • Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg (DE)
  • Department of Systems Physiology of Learning and
  • Center for Behavioral Brain Sciences (DE)
  • Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology (DE)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2014-02-03
Volume
111
Issue
7
Pages
2800-2805
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2074133215
Cited by
176
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 1
FWCI
9.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Leibniz-Gemeinschaft
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Keywords
extracellular matrix, auditory cortex, cognitive flexibility, reversal learning, synaptic plasticity, neuroplasticity, Mongolian gerbil
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Auditory Cortex, Cognition, Discrimination Learning, Extracellular Matrix, Fluorescence, Gerbillinae, Immunohistochemistry, Male, Neuronal Plasticity, Reversal Learning, Memory, Long-Term

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