The medial dorsal thalamic nucleus and the medial prefrontal cortex of the rat function together to support associative recognition and recency but not item recognition
Open accessAbstract
In humans recognition memory deficits, a typical feature of diencephalic amnesia, have been tentatively linked to mediodorsal thalamic nucleus (MD) damage. Animal studies have occasionally investigated the role of the MD in single-item recognition, but have not systematically analyzed its involvement in other recognition memory processes. In Experiment 1 rats with bilateral excitotoxic lesions in the MD or the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) were tested in tasks that assessed single-item recognition (novel object preference), associative recognition memory (object-in-place), and recency discrimination (recency memory task). Experiment 2 examined the functional importance of the interactions between the MD and mPFC using disconnection techniques. Unilateral excitotoxic lesions were placed in both the MD and the mPFC in either the same (MD + mPFC Ipsi) or opposite hemispheres (MD + mPFC Contra group). Bilateral lesions in the MD or mPFC impaired object-in-place and recency memory tasks, but had no effect on novel object preference. In Experiment 2 the MD + mPFC Contra group was significantly impaired in the object-in-place and recency memory tasks compared with the MD + mPFC Ipsi group, but novel object preference was intact. Thus, connections between the MD and mPFC are critical for recognition memory when the discriminations involve associative or recency information. However, the rodent MD is not necessary for single-item recognition memory.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Lesion of the mPFC disrupts memory in the OiP test in rats.
“Consistently, lesion of the mPFC disrupted memory in the OiP test in rats (Barker et al., 2007; Barker and Warburton, 2011b; Cross et al., 2012).”
From The medial prefrontal cortex - hippocampus circuit that integrates information of object, place and time to construct episodic memory in rodents: Behavioral, anatomical and neurochemical properties (2020) · cites this paper as Cross et al., 2012
TOM is impaired in rodents with selective lesions of the mPFC or lidocaine injection.
“TOM was impaired in rodents with selective lesions of the mPFC (Barker et al., 2007; Barker and Warburton, 2011b; Cross et al., 2012; Mitchell and Laiacona, 1998) or lidocaine injection (Hannesson et al., 2004).”
From The medial prefrontal cortex - hippocampus circuit that integrates information of object, place and time to construct episodic memory in rodents: Behavioral, anatomical and neurochemical properties (2020) · cites this paper as Cross et al., 2012
The interplay between the mPFC and medial thalamus is critical for TOM and OiP but not NOP tests.
“The interplay between the mPFC and medial thalamus is also critical for TOM and OiP, but not NOP, tests”
From The medial prefrontal cortex - hippocampus circuit that integrates information of object, place and time to construct episodic memory in rodents: Behavioral, anatomical and neurochemical properties (2020) · cites this paper as Cross et al., 2012
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 52 · Cited by 106
- Authors
- Cross, L., Brown, M. W., Aggleton, J. P., & Warburton, E. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Cardiff University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Warburton, E. Clea
- Venue
- Learning & Memory
- Publisher
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
- Published
- 2012-12-21
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-50
- ISSN
- 1072-0502 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-5485
- PMC
- PMC3533127
- OpenAlex
- W2106682404
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Learning & Memory (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
- Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
- Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust
- Directorate for Biological Sciences
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/100310X/1, BB/E010407/1)
- 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
- medial prefrontal cortex, recognition memory, associative recognition memory, novel object preference, excitotoxic lesions, diencephalic amnesia, rats
- MeSH terms
- Analysis of Variance, Animals, Association Learning, Discrimination, Psychological, Electrolysis, Exploratory Behavior, Functional Laterality, Male, Neural Pathways, Space Perception, Prefrontal Cortex, Midline Thalamic Nuclei, 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