Cited by 196Memory and Neural MechanismsSpatial Cognition and NavigationMemory Processes and Influences

A comparison of the effects of medial prefrontal, cingulate cortex, and cingulum bundle lesions on tests of spatial memory: evidence of a double dissociation between frontal and cingulum bundle contributions

Open access
Aggleton, JP, Neave, N, Nagle, S, Sahgal, A·1995·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Rats were trained on an automated delayed nonmatching-to-position (DNMP) task. They then received cytotoxic lesions in either the medial prefrontal cortex (n = 13) or the cingulate and retrosplenial cortices (n = 8), or radiofrequency lesions in either the fornix (n = 6) or the cingulum bundle (n = 8). Twelve animals served as surgical controls. Only the fornical and medial prefrontal lesions disrupted DNMP performance, both groups showing a loss of accuracy and an increase in bias. The rats were then trained on a lever discrimination and reversal task, the medial prefrontal and fornical groups showing evidence of an increase in bias when compared with the cingulate cortex group. Finally, the rats were trained on a forced alternation task in a T- maze. Marked deficits were observed in the fornix and cingulum bundle groups, but the medial prefrontal and cingulate groups were unimpaired. The double dissociation between the effects of the prefrontal and cingulum bundle lesions highlights the very different nature of the two spatial tasks (DNMP and T-maze alternation), even though both involved a nonmatching rule. These findings may reflect the involvement of divergent outputs from the fornix-anterior thalamic pathway. One possibility is that anterior thalamic projections to the medial prefrontal cortex are concerned with processing egocentric information, while anterior thalamic projections to temporal regions via the cingulum bundle are concerned with allocentric information. The results also indicate that the effects of conventional lesions in the cingulate cortex and medial prefrontal cortex may be compromised by additional damage to the cingulum bundle.

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.15-11-07270.1995

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Fornix and anterior thalamic lesions, as well as hippocampal and medial prefrontal lesions, persistently impair delayed nonmatching-to-position.

    “In contrast, both fornix and anterior thalamic lesions, as well as hippocampal and medial prefrontal lesions (Aggleton et al., 1992, 1995), persistently impair this task.”

    From The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction (2018) · cites this paper as Aggleton et al., 1995

    The introduction reports that hippocampal, fornix, and anterior thalamic lesions produce severe deficits on spatial tasks including delayed nonmatching-to-position. The paper also reports fornix and medial prefrontal DNMP deficits when rats were retested about six weeks after surgery (Subjects; Comparisons among animals with medial prefrontal lesions). It does not establish that the hippocampal and anterior thalamic deficits persist, so the claim’s persistence qualifier is not supported for all four lesion types. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aggleton, J., Neave, N., Nagle, S., & Sahgal, A.
Affiliations
Durham University (GB)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
1995-11-01
Volume
15
Issue
11
Pages
7270-7281
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2129684141
Cited by
196
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
spatial memory, medial prefrontal cortex, cingulate cortex, cingulum, fornix, double dissociation, reversal learning, T-maze, retrosplenial cortex
MeSH terms
Animals, Discrimination, Psychological, Gyrus Cinguli, Hippocampus, Male, Memory, Rats, Inbred Strains, Space Perception, Prefrontal Cortex, Maze Learning, 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