PreprintCited by 715Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesSpatial Cognition and Navigation

Hippocampal damage and exploratory preferences in rats: memory for objects, places, and contexts

Open access
Mumby, Dave G., Gaskin, Stephane, Glenn, Melissa J., Schramek, Tania E., Lehmann, Hugo·2002·Learning & Memory

Abstract

Rats have a natural tendency to spend more time exploring novel objects than familiar objects, and this preference can be used as an index of object recognition. Rats also show an exploratory preference for objects in locations where they have not previously encountered objects (an index of place memory) and for familiar objects in contexts different from those in which the objects were originally encountered (an index of context memory). In this experiment, rats with cytotoxic lesions of the hippocampal formation were tested on all three versions of the novelty-preference paradigm, with a 5-min retention interval between the familiarization and test phases. Rats with sham lesions displayed a novelty preference on all three trial types, whereas the rats with hippocampal lesions displayed a novelty preference on Object trials but did not discriminate between the objects on Place trials or Context trials. The findings indicate that hippocampal damage impairs memory for contextual or spatial aspects of an experience, whereas memory for objects that were part of the same experience are left relatively intact.

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.41302

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
Mumby, D. G., Gaskin, S., Glenn, M. J., Schramek, T. E., & Lehmann, H.
Affiliations
Concordia University (CA)
Venue
Learning & Memory
Published
2002-03-01
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
49-57
ISSN
  • 1072-0502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5485
OpenAlex
W2024032885
Cited by
714
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 55
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Learning & Memory (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
hippocampal lesions, novelty preference, object recognition memory, place memory, contextual memory, spatial memory, hippocampal formation, rats, cytotoxic lesions, memory impairment
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Choice Behavior, Exploratory Behavior, Hippocampus, Male, Memory, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Space Perception, Rats, Long-Evans, 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