Cited by 169Memory and Neural MechanismsStress Responses and CortisolMemory Processes and Influences

Emotion-Induced Amnesia in Rats: Working Memory-Specific Impairment, Corticosterone-Memory Correlation, and Fear Versus Arousal Effects on Memory

Open access
Woodson, James C., Macintosh, Deric, Fleshner, Monika, Diamond, David M.·2003·Learning & Memory

Abstract

We have shown previously that psychological stress (predator exposure) impairs spatial memory in rats. We have extended that finding here to show that predator stress selectively impaired recently acquired (hippocampal-dependent) spatial working memory without affecting long-term (hippocampal-independent) spatial reference memory. We also investigated why predator exposure impairs memory. Was spatial memory impaired because of the fear-provoking aspects of predator exposure or only because the cat was a novel and arousing stimulus? If the latter possibility was correct, then any novel and arousing stimulus, independent of its emotional valence (i.e., aversive or appetitive), would impair memory. We found that spatial working memory was not impaired when the male rats were exposed to a sexually receptive female rat, a stimulus that was novel and arousing to them, but not aversive. We also found that there was an equivalent increase in serum corticosterone levels in male rats exposed to either a cat or a female rat, but only the cat-exposed rats exhibited a significant correlation between corticosterone levels and impaired memory. Overall, this series of experiments demonstrates that (1) predator stress selectively impaired working (hippocampal-dependent), but not reference (hippocampal-independent), memory; (2) a fear-provoking stimulus, and not merely novelty and increased arousal, impaired spatial memory; and (3) increased corticosterone levels correlated withimpaired spatial working memory only under predator exposure, that is, fear-provoking conditions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/lm.62903

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Woodson, J. C., Macintosh, D., Fleshner, M., & Diamond, D. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Diamond, David M.
Venue
Learning & Memory
Published
2003-09
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
326-336
ISSN
  • 1072-0502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5485
OpenAlex
W2011771758
Cited by
169
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 13
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Learning & Memory (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
predator stress, spatial working memory, spatial reference memory, hippocampal-dependent memory, corticosterone, fear, sexual arousal, stress-induced memory impairment
MeSH terms
Amnesia, Animals, Arousal, Corticosterone, Emotions, Fear, Hippocampus, Male, Memory, Memory, Short-Term, Stress, Psychological, Linear Models, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, 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