CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 294Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms

The Hippocampus and Memory for “What,” “Where,” and “When”

Open access
Ergorul, Ceren, Eichenbaum, Howard·2004·Learning & Memory
DOI 10.1101/lm.73304PMC PMC498318
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Previous studies have indicated that nonhuman animals might have a capacity for episodic-like recall reflected in memory for “what” events that happened “where” and “when”. These studies did not identify the brain structures that are critical to this capacity. Here we trained rats to remember single training episodes, each composed of a series of odors presented in different places on an open field. Additional assessments examined the individual contributions of odor and spatial cues to judgments about the order of events. The results indicated that normal rats used a combination of spatial (“where”) and olfactory (“what”) cues to distinguish “when” events occurred. Rats with lesions of the hippocampus failed in using combinations of spatial and olfactory cues, even as evidence from probe tests and initial sampling behavior indicated spared capacities for perception of spatial and odor cues, as well as some form of memory for those individual cues. These findings indicate that rats integrate “what,” “where,” and “when” information in memory for single experiences, and that the hippocampus is critical to this capacity.

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.73304

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • The nonconscious HOR and the HOROR that instantiates awareness of ourselves as being in the HOR both occur within working memory.

    “Our hypothesis is that the nonconscious HOR, and the HOROR that instantiates the awareness of ourselves as being in the HOR, both occur within working memory.”

    From A higher-order theory of emotional consciousness (2017) · cites this paper as [108]

    The paper’s Discussion addresses hippocampal memory for episodes and stimulus familiarity, while its introductory passage discusses the difficulty of assessing subjective consciousness in animals. Neither addresses nonconscious HORs, HORORs, or whether they occur in working memory (searched those terms and awareness in working memory). The citing sentence also presents this as the citing authors’ own hypothesis. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Nonconscious processing within working memory is more robust than previously observed.

    “the plausibility of our hypothesis is supported by results from recent studies indicating that nonconscious processing within working memory is more robust than previously observed (79, 101, 108, 127)”

    From A higher-order theory of emotional consciousness (2017) · cites this paper as [108]

    The Discussion addresses hippocampal and parahippocampal contributions to object memory, not nonconscious processing within working memory. Searches for that phrase and for implicit or unconscious working-memory processing found no passage assessing whether such processing is more robust than previously observed. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Rodents with hippocampal lesions fail in both what-where-when tasks and incidental encoding tasks.

    “These observations are supported by research using established episodic-like memory paradigms, showing that rodents with hippocampal lesions fail in both what–where–when tasks [70,72] as well as incidental encoding tasks [82].”

    From Is episodic-like memory <i>like</i> episodic memory? (2024) · cites this paper as [70]

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

Related

Authors
Ergorul, C., & Eichenbaum, H.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
ORCID
Eichenbaum, Howard
Venue
Learning & Memory
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Published
2004-07
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
397-405
ISSN
  • 1072-0502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5485
DOI
10.1101/lm.73304
PMC
PMC498318
OpenAlex
W2015468244
Cited by
294
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 11
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Learning & Memory (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH 52090, R01MH052090)
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, episodic-like memory, rats, spatial memory, olfactory memory, temporal order memory, olfactory cues, spatial cues, hippocampal lesions, memory integration, probe test
MeSH terms
Animals, Association Learning, Discrimination Learning, Hippocampus, Male, Mental Recall, Serial Learning, Smell, Spatial Behavior, Time 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