Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 483

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 127 of the 127 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Basal forebrain lesions in monkeys disrupt attention but not learning and memory [published erratum appears in J Neurosci 1995 Mar;15(3): following table of contents]

Open access
Voytko, ML, Olton, DS, Richardson, RT, Gorman, LK, Tobin, JR, Price, DL·1994·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Cognitive impairments in humans and animals have been linked to dysfunction of neurons in the basal forebrain cholinergic system (BFCS). Degeneration of these cells may be, in part, responsible for some of the cognitive deficits observed in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Although memory deficits are associated with lesions of the BFCS in rats, impairments in memory have been more subtle following similar lesions in monkeys. To evaluate the effects of BFCS lesions on cognitive processes in monkeys, we have systematically investigated the behavioral effects of ibotenic acid injections in the medial septum, nucleus of the diagonal band of Broca, and nucleus basalis of Meynert in cynomolgus monkeys, using a large series of cognitive tasks that examined different mnemonic and attentional abilities. These lesions did not impair accuracy in delayed nonmatching-to-sample, delayed response, simple or concurrent visual discriminations, spatial discriminations, or discrimination reversals. However, these lesions disrupted attentional focusing. Similar impairments in attention have been noted in patients with AD. BFCS lesions increased sensitivity to injections of the cholinergic antagonist scopolamine in a delayed nonmatching-to-sample task, indicating that the central cholinergic system was compromised in these monkeys. In concert, the results of this study suggest that the primate basal forebrain may be more involved in attentional than mnemonic processes, and that degeneration of neurons in the BFCS in cases of AD may contribute to the attention deficits observed in these individuals.

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.14-01-00167.1994

Cites

127 of 127 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 127 references

Cited by

See all 483

Metadata

Authors
Voytko, M., Olton, D., Richardson, R., Gorman, L., Tobin, Jr., & Price, D.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
1994-01-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
167-186
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1516658808
Cited by
483
References
127
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: Basal forebrain lesions in monkeys disrupt attention but not learning and memory [published erratum appears in J Neurosci 1995 Mar;15(3): following table of contents]. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.14-01-00167.1994
The paper
Voytko, M., Olton, D., Richardson, R., Gorman, L., Tobin, Jr., & Price, D. (1994). Basal forebrain lesions in monkeys disrupt attention but not learning and memory [published erratum appears in J Neurosci 1995 Mar;15(3): following table of contents]. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.14-01-00167.1994

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.