PreprintCited by 79Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesSpatial Cognition and Navigation

New behavioral protocols to extend our knowledge of rodent object recognition memory

Open access
Albasser, Mathieu M., Chapman, Rosanna J., Amin, Eman, Iordanova, Mihaela D., Vann, Seralynne D., Aggleton, John P.·2010·Learning & Memory

Abstract

Animals often show an innate preference for novelty. This preference facilitates spontaneous exploration tasks of novelty discrimination (recognition memory). In response to limitations with standard spontaneous object recognition procedures for rodents, a new task ("bow-tie maze") was devised. This task combines features of delayed nonmatching-to-sample with spontaneous exploration. The present study explored aspects of object recognition in the bow-tie maze not amenable to standard procedures. Two rat strains (Lister Hooded, Dark Agouti) displayed very reliable object recognition in both the light and dark, with the Lister Hooded strain showing superior performance (Experiment 1). These findings reveal the potential contribution of tactile and odor cues in object recognition. As the bow-tie maze task permits multiple trials within a session, it was possible to derive forgetting curves both within-session and between-sessions (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, rats with hippocampal or fornix lesions performed at normal levels on the basic version of the recognition task, contrasting with the marked deficits previously seen after perirhinal cortex lesions. Next, the training protocol was adapted (Experiment 3), and this modified version was used successfully with mice (Experiment 4). The overall findings demonstrate the efficacy of this new behavioral task and advance our understanding of object recognition.

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.1879610

Cites

57 of 57 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
Albasser, M. M., Chapman, R. J., Amin, E., Iordanova, M. D., Vann, S. D., & Aggleton, J. P.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Venue
Learning & Memory
Published
2010-08
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
407-419
ISSN
  • 1072-0502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5485
OpenAlex
W2057977118
Cited by
79
References
55
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 9
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Learning & Memory (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (WT 087855)
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
object recognition memory, novelty preference, spontaneous exploration, delayed nonmatching-to-sample, forgetting curve, tactile cues, olfactory cues, hippocampal lesions, fornix lesions, Lister hooded rats, Dark Agouti rats, mice
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Exploratory Behavior, Neuropsychological Tests, Recognition, Psychology, Mice, 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