PreprintCited by 222Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms

Post-training reversible inactivation of the hippocampus enhances novel object recognition memory

Open access
Oliveira, Ana M.M., Hawk, Joshua D., Abel, Ted, Havekes, Robbert·2010·Learning & Memory

Abstract

Research on the role of the hippocampus in object recognition memory has produced conflicting results. Previous studies have used permanent hippocampal lesions to assess the requirement for the hippocampus in the object recognition task. However, permanent hippocampal lesions may impact performance through effects on processes besides memory consolidation including acquisition, retrieval, and performance. To overcome this limitation, we used an intrahippocampal injection of the GABA agonist muscimol to reversibly inactivate the hippocampus immediately after training mice in two versions of an object recognition task. We found that the inactivation of the dorsal hippocampus after training impairs object-place recognition memory but enhances novel object recognition (NOR) memory. However, inactivation of the dorsal hippocampus after repeated exposure to the training context did not affect object recognition memory. Our findings suggest that object recognition memory formation does not require the hippocampus and, moreover, that activity in the hippocampus can interfere with the consolidation of object recognition memory when object information encoding occurs in an unfamiliar environment.

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.1625310

Cites

48 of 48 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
Oliveira, A. M. M., Hawk, J. D., Abel, T., & Havekes, R.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Learning & Memory
Published
2010-02-26
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
155-160
ISSN
  • 1072-0502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5485
OpenAlex
W1967872727
Cited by
222
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 12
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Learning & Memory (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Keywords
hippocampus, novel object recognition memory, muscimol, dorsal hippocampus, memory consolidation, training context
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Animals, Exploratory Behavior, Hippocampus, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Motor Activity, Muscimol, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Teaching, Time Factors, GABA Agonists, Recognition, Psychology, Mice

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