Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 434

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

Object Recognition and Location Memory in Monkeys with Excitotoxic Lesions of the Amygdala and Hippocampus

Open access
Murray, Elisabeth A., Mishkin, Mortimer·1998·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Earlier work indicated that combined but not separate removal of the amygdala and hippocampus, together with the cortex underlying these structures, leads to a severe impairment in visual recognition. More recent work, however, has shown that removal of the rhinal cortex, a region subjacent to the amygdala and rostral hippocampus, yields nearly the same impairment as the original removal. This raises the possibility that the earlier results were attributable to combined damage to the rostral and caudal portions of the rhinal cortex rather than to the combined amygdala and hippocampal removal. To test this possibility, we trained rhesus monkeys on delayed nonmatching-to-sample, a measure of visual recognition, gave them selective lesions of the amygdala and hippocampus made with the excitotoxin ibotenic acid, and then assessed their recognition abilities by using increasingly longer delays and list lengths, including delays as long as 40 min. Postoperatively, monkeys with the combined amygdala and hippocampal lesions performed as well as intact controls at every stage of testing. The same monkeys also were unimpaired relative to controls on an analogous test of spatial memory, delayed nonmatching-to-location. It is unlikely that unintended sparing of target structures can account for the lack of impairment; there was a significant positive correlation between the percentage of damage to the hippocampus and scores on portions of the recognition performance test, suggesting that, paradoxically, the greater the hippocampal damage, the better the recognition. The results show that, within the medial temporal lobe, the rhinal cortex is both necessary and sufficient for visual recognition.

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.18-16-06568.1998

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 434

Metadata

Authors
Murray, E. A., & Mishkin, M.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
1998-08-15
Volume
18
Issue
16
Pages
6568-6582
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2137022539
Cited by
434
References
3
FWCI
16.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Object Recognition and Location Memory in Monkeys with Excitotoxic Lesions of the Amygdala and Hippocampus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.18-16-06568.1998
The paper
Murray, E. A., & Mishkin, M. (1998). Object Recognition and Location Memory in Monkeys with Excitotoxic Lesions of the Amygdala and Hippocampus. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.18-16-06568.1998

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.