Cited by 46Memory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory Processes and Influences

Dorsal Hippocampal Contributions to Unimodal Contextual Conditioning

Open access
Otto, T., Poon, P.·2006·Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Although there is general consensus that the hippocampus is not critically involved in the acquisition of fear conditioned to an explicit conditioned stimulus (CS), the extent to which the hippocampus participates in contextual fear conditioning remains unclear. To further characterize the potential role of the hippocampus in contextual fear conditioning, the present experiments examined the effect of excitotoxic lesions of dorsal hippocampus on the acquisition of a novel contextual fear conditioning paradigm in which a unimodal (olfactory) cue served to disambiguate discrete "contexts" within a single behavioral training chamber. Selective lesions of dorsal hippocampus severely attenuated olfactory contextual conditioning without affecting conditioning to an explicit auditory or olfactory CS. Additional experiments indicate that these contextual conditioning deficits cannot be attributed to a lesion-induced decrement in olfactory perception, a preferential impairment of "weak" forms of conditioning, or hyperactivity. Thus, the hippocampus appears to contribute importantly to the acquisition of fear conditioned to explicitly nonspatial, unimodal, temporally, and spatially diffuse contextual 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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.1056-06.2006

Cites

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 41 · Cited by 46

Authors
Otto, T., & Poon, P.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2006-06-14
Volume
26
Issue
24
Pages
6603-6609
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2119231364
Cited by
46
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0316247, 9817145)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
dorsal hippocampus, contextual fear conditioning, olfactory conditioning, excitotoxic lesions, fear memory, olfactory cues, auditory conditioning
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Association Learning, Behavior, Animal, Conditioning, Psychological, Fear, Hippocampus, Male, Motor Activity, Olfactory Pathways, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Freezing Reaction, Cataleptic, 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