Cited by 21Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Mapping parahippocampal systems for recognition and recency memory in the absence of the rat hippocampus

Open access
Kinnavane, L., Amin, E., Horne, M., Aggleton, J. P.·2014·European Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The present study examined immediate-early gene expression in the perirhinal cortex of rats with hippocampal lesions. The goal was to test those models of recognition memory which assume that the perirhinal cortex can function independently of the hippocampus. The c-fos gene was targeted, as its expression in the perirhinal cortex is strongly associated with recognition memory. Four groups of rats were examined. Rats with hippocampal lesions and their surgical controls were given either a recognition memory task (novel vs. familiar objects) or a relative recency task (objects with differing degrees of familiarity). Perirhinal Fos expression in the hippocampal-lesioned groups correlated with both recognition and recency performance. The hippocampal lesions, however, had no apparent effect on overall levels of perirhinal or entorhinal cortex c-fos expression in response to novel objects, with only restricted effects being seen in the recency condition. Network analyses showed that whereas the patterns of parahippocampal interactions were differentially affected by novel or familiar objects, these correlated networks were not altered by hippocampal lesions. Additional analyses in control rats revealed two modes of correlated medial temporal activation. Novel stimuli recruited the pathway from the lateral entorhinal cortex (cortical layer II or III) to hippocampal field CA3, and thence to CA1. Familiar stimuli recruited the direct pathway from the lateral entorhinal cortex (principally layer III) to CA1. The present findings not only reveal the independence from the hippocampus of some perirhinal systems associated with recognition memory, but also show how novel stimuli engage hippocampal subfields in qualitatively different ways from familiar stimuli.

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 · 10.1111/ejn.12740

Cites

75 of 75 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
Kinnavane, L., Amin, E., Horne, M., & Aggleton, J. P.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Kinnavane, L.
Venue
European Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-09-29
Volume
40
Issue
12
Pages
3720-3734
ISSN
  • 0953-816X (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-9568
OpenAlex
W2121438811
Cited by
21
References
75
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (WT 087955, WT 09520)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
recognition memory, perirhinal cortex, entorhinal cortex, hippocampal lesions, Fos expression, immediate early gene expression, novel object recognition, CA3, medial temporal lobe, network analysis, rats
MeSH terms
Animals, Hippocampus, Immunohistochemistry, Male, Models, Neurological, Neuropsychological Tests, Temporal Lobe, Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-fos, Recognition, Psychology, 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