Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 207

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Normal olfactory discrimination learning set and facilitation of reversal learning after medial-temporal damage in rats: implications for an account of preserved learning abilities in amnesia

Open access
Eichenbaum, H, Fagan, A, Cohen, NJ·1986·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Recent evidence of preserved skill learning in patients with “global” amnesia has led to the postulation of a qualitative distinction between functionally separate memory systems, one of which may remain preserved when the other is profoundly impaired. On one account, the separate memory systems support either the learning of declarative knowledge, i.e., facts and associations, or the learning of procedural knowledge, i.e., knowledge that permits the expression of skilled performance without reference to specific facts or associations. In an effort to develop a rodent model of amnesia that illustrates the same distinction between memory systems, rats were trained in a series of discrimination and reversal problems using olfaction, a sensory modality in which they rapidly learn new associations. Rats with bilateral fornix, amygdala, or combined fornix and amygdala damage learned successive two-odor discriminations as quickly as normal and sham-operated control subjects. Furthermore, all groups rapidly acquired the skills of discrimination as revealed in the development of a learning set. Subsequent presentation of a reversal of one discrimination elicited a marked dissociation among groups: Normal rats and rats with amygdala lesions required many more trials to acquire the reversal than to acquire a new discrimination problem, whereas rats with fornix lesions learned the reversal rather easily. A detailed analysis of response strategies suggested that normal rats and rats with amygdala lesions first extinguished the prior response tendencies and then abandoned the learning set skills and treated the reversal much as they did the initial discrimination problem.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.06-07-01876.1986

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 207

Metadata

Authors
Eichenbaum, H., Fagan, A., & Cohen, N.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
1986-07-01
Volume
6
Issue
7
Pages
1876-1884
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1908113234
Cited by
207
References
3
FWCI
5.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Normal olfactory discrimination learning set and facilitation of reversal learning after medial-temporal damage in rats: implications for an account of preserved learning abilities in amnesia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.06-07-01876.1986
The paper
Eichenbaum, H., Fagan, A., & Cohen, N. (1986). Normal olfactory discrimination learning set and facilitation of reversal learning after medial-temporal damage in rats: implications for an account of preserved learning abilities in amnesia. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.06-07-01876.1986

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.