Cited by 1,777Memory and Neural MechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMotor Control and Adaptation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Neostriatal Habit Learning System in Humans

Abstract

Amnesic patients and nondemented patients with Parkinson's disease were given a probabilistic classification task in which they learned which of two outcomes would occur on each trial, given the particular combination of cues that appeared. Amnesic patients exhibited normal learning of the task but had severely impaired declarative memory for the training episode. In contrast, patients with Parkinson's disease failed to learn the probabilistic classification task, despite having intact memory for the training episode. This double dissociation shows that the limbic-diencephalic regions damaged in amnesia and the neostriatum damaged in Parkinson's disease support separate and parallel learning systems. In humans, the neostriatum (caudate nucleus and putamen) is essential for the gradual, incremental learning of associations that is characteristic of habit learning. The neostriatum is important not just for motor behavior and motor learning but also for acquiring nonmotor dispositions and tendencies that depend on new associations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.273.5280.1399

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. FAHN S, RECENT DEV PARKINSON (1987).
  2. HEATON R.K., WISCONSIN CARD SORTI (1993).
  3. KNOWLTON B.J., IN PRESS NEUROPSYCHO .
  4. MATTIS S, GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY (1976).
  5. MISHKIN M, NEUROBIOLOGY LEARNIN: 65 (1984).
  6. REBER P, IN PRESS BEHAV NEURO .
  7. SAINTCYR J.A., NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL D: 204 (1992).
  8. SHALLICE T, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY MENT (1988).
  9. SQUIRE L.R., COGNITIVE NEUROSCIEN: 825 (1994).
  10. WEISKRANTZ L, ANAL BEHAV CHANGE: 415 (1968).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Knowlton, B. J., Mangels, J. A., & Squire, L. R.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Squire, Larry R.
Venue
Science
Published
1996-09-06
Volume
273
Issue
5280
Pages
1399-1402
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W1979455727
Cited by
1,777
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 67 · 2015: 68 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 86 · 2012: 73
FWCI
20.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH24600)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
neostriatum, habit learning, Parkinson's disease, amnesia, declarative memory, caudate nucleus, putamen, associative learning, double dissociation
MeSH terms
Aged, Amnesia, Diencephalon, Female, Humans, Learning, Limbic System, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Parkinson Disease, Matched-Pair Analysis, Neostriatum

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