PreprintCited by 35Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Role of the anterior cingulate cortex in the retrieval of novel object recognition memory after a long delay

Open access
Pezze, Marie A., Marshall, Hayley J., Fone, Kevin CF., Cassaday, Helen J.·2017·Learning & Memory

Abstract

Previous in vivo electrophysiological studies suggest that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACgx) is an important substrate of novel object recognition (NOR) memory. However, intervention studies are needed to confirm this conclusion and permanent lesion studies cannot distinguish effects on encoding and retrieval. The interval between encoding and retrieval tests may also be a critical determinant of the role of the ACgx. The current series of experiments used micro-infusion of the GABAA receptor agonist, muscimol, into ACgx to reversibly inactivate the area and distinguish its role in encoding and retrieval. ACgx infusions of muscimol, before encoding did not alter NOR assessed after a delay of 20 min or 24 h. However, when infused into the ACgx before retrieval muscimol impaired NOR assessed after a delay of 24 h, but not after a 20-min retention test. Together these findings suggest that the ACgx plays a time-dependent role in the retrieval, but not the encoding, of NOR memory, neuronal activation being required for the retrieval of remote (24 h old), but not recent (20 min old) visual 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/lm.044784.116

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.

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?

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 46 · Cited by 35

Authors
Pezze, M. A., Marshall, H. J., Fone, K. C., & Cassaday, H. J.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Venue
Learning & Memory
Published
2017-06-15
Volume
24
Issue
7
Pages
310-317
ISSN
  • 1072-0502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5485
OpenAlex
W2611148813
Cited by
35
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Learning & Memory (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
BBSRC (BB/K004980/1)
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
anterior cingulate cortex, novel object recognition memory, memory retrieval, memory encoding, muscimol, GABA-A receptor agonists, retention delay, visual memory
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Animals, Discrimination, Psychological, Exploratory Behavior, Gyrus Cinguli, Male, Microinjections, Muscimol, Reaction Time, Mental Recall, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Rats, Wistar, Recognition, Psychology, Rats, GABA-A Receptor Agonists

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