The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Neurochemical Correlate of a Spatial Preference in Rats
Abstract
Spatial (left or right) preferences were determined for rats given foot shock in a T-maze. The animals were killed, and left and right striata were assayed separately for dopamine and left and right teldiencephalic regions were assayed for norepinephrine. Dopamine content was significantly higher (by 12 percent) in the striata contralateral to rats' side preferences than in the ipsilateral striata; there was no such difference for teldiencephalic norepinephrine. The small asymmetry in striatal dopamine content is not due to any learning- or stress-related change induced by the testing procedure but is probably inherent in normal rats. Some spatial behavior appears to be the manifestation of a normal and specific difference in the activity of left and right nigrostriatal systems.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Wong, J. E., Cao, J., Dorris, D. M., & Meitzen, J. (2016) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-015-1158-9 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Zimmerberg, B., Glick, S. D., & Jerussi, T. P.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 1974-08-16
- Volume
- 185
- Issue
- 4151
- Pages
- 623-625
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W2062695695
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Neurochemical Correlate of a Spatial Preference in Rats. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1126/science.185.4151.623
- The paper
- Zimmerberg, B., Glick, S. D., & Jerussi, T. P. (1974). Neurochemical Correlate of a Spatial Preference in Rats. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4151.623
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
