PreprintCited by 65Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesSpatial Cognition and Navigation

A limited role for the hippocampus in the modulation of novel-object preference by contextual cues

Open access
Piterkin, Pavel, Cole, Emily, Cossette, Marie-Pierre, Gaskin, Stephane, Mumby, Dave G.·2008·Learning & Memory

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests that rats require an intact hippocampus in order to recognize familiar objects when they encounter them again in a different context. The two experiments reported here further examined how changes in context affect rats' performance on the novel-object preference (NOP) test of object-recognition memory, and how those effects interact with the effects of HPC damage. Rats with HPC lesions and control rats received NOP testing in either the same context in which they had previously encountered sample objects, or in a different but equally familiar context. In Experiment 1, the two contexts had very few overlapping cues within or outside the apparatus; thus, the differences between them were global. Consistent with previous results, control rats showed a novel-object preference in both the unchanged and (globally) changed contexts, whereas rats with HPC lesions displayed a preference only in the unchanged context. In Experiment 2, the context shift included only local features proximal to the test objects. The main results were the reverse of Experiment 1--rats with HPC lesions displayed a novel-object preference in both the unchanged and (locally) changed contexts, whereas control rats displayed a preference only in the unchanged context. The findings are consistent with the view that HPC damage does not cause a general inability to recognize objects, nor an inability to encode or store a representation of the context in which the objects are encountered. They suggest instead that HPC damage impairs the ability to remember specific locations of familiar objects within a particular context.

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.1035508

Cites

44 of 44 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?

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
Piterkin, P., Cole, E., Cossette, M.-P., Gaskin, S., & Mumby, D. G.
Affiliations
Concordia University (CA)
Venue
Learning & Memory
Published
2008-10
Volume
15
Issue
10
Pages
785-791
ISSN
  • 1072-0502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5485
OpenAlex
W2104552320
Cited by
65
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Learning & Memory (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
Keywords
hippocampus, novel object preference, object recognition memory, contextual cues, hippocampal lesions, rats, contextual memory, spatial memory, object location memory
MeSH terms
Animals, Cues, Hippocampus, Male, Memory, Rats, Long-Evans, 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