Limits...
The neural basis of nonvisual object recognition memory in the rat.

Albasser MM, Olarte-Sánchez CM, Amin E, Horne MR, Newton MJ, Warburton EC, Aggleton JP - Behav. Neurosci. (2012)

Bottom Line: The hippocampal findings prompted Experiment 2.Across two replications, no evidence was found that hippocampal lesions impair nonvisual object recognition.These findings reveal a network of linked c-fos activations that share superficial features with those associated with visual recognition but differ in the fine details; for example, in the locus of the perirhinal cortex activation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Object recognition performance of Group Novel and Group Familiar on Session 1 and Session 13. The recognition performance (mean +/− one standard error) of the 10 rats from each group is shown on the left, where the discrimination ratios (D2, A.) and the exploration differences (D1, B.) are shown. The bottom left graph (C.) shows the total amounts of object exploration (irrespective of whether to novel or familiar objects). The graphs on the right (n = 8) show the corresponding trial by trial data (D1, D.; D2, E.; total exploration, F.) for the revised groups that used only those Group Novel rats (n = 8) showing clear object recognition in the final session. For all graphs on the right side of the figure the data are cumulative, i.e., they are not independent across trials. Those conditions leading to a significant group difference by the end of 20 trials are indicated: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3569044&req=5

fig3: Object recognition performance of Group Novel and Group Familiar on Session 1 and Session 13. The recognition performance (mean +/− one standard error) of the 10 rats from each group is shown on the left, where the discrimination ratios (D2, A.) and the exploration differences (D1, B.) are shown. The bottom left graph (C.) shows the total amounts of object exploration (irrespective of whether to novel or familiar objects). The graphs on the right (n = 8) show the corresponding trial by trial data (D1, D.; D2, E.; total exploration, F.) for the revised groups that used only those Group Novel rats (n = 8) showing clear object recognition in the final session. For all graphs on the right side of the figure the data are cumulative, i.e., they are not independent across trials. Those conditions leading to a significant group difference by the end of 20 trials are indicated: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Mentions: While the initial (Session 1) object recognition scores (D1, D2) of the two groups appeared closely matched, they looked very different by Session 13 (Figure 3 left). This pattern was expected as in Session 13 the Group Novel rats explored one novel and one familiar object per trial. In contrast, Group Familiar rats were given two familiar objects per trial (as they had been explored on all preceding sessions), resulting in much lower D1 and D2 scores. This pattern was confirmed by more formal analyses.


The neural basis of nonvisual object recognition memory in the rat.

Albasser MM, Olarte-Sánchez CM, Amin E, Horne MR, Newton MJ, Warburton EC, Aggleton JP - Behav. Neurosci. (2012)

Object recognition performance of Group Novel and Group Familiar on Session 1 and Session 13. The recognition performance (mean +/− one standard error) of the 10 rats from each group is shown on the left, where the discrimination ratios (D2, A.) and the exploration differences (D1, B.) are shown. The bottom left graph (C.) shows the total amounts of object exploration (irrespective of whether to novel or familiar objects). The graphs on the right (n = 8) show the corresponding trial by trial data (D1, D.; D2, E.; total exploration, F.) for the revised groups that used only those Group Novel rats (n = 8) showing clear object recognition in the final session. For all graphs on the right side of the figure the data are cumulative, i.e., they are not independent across trials. Those conditions leading to a significant group difference by the end of 20 trials are indicated: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3569044&req=5

fig3: Object recognition performance of Group Novel and Group Familiar on Session 1 and Session 13. The recognition performance (mean +/− one standard error) of the 10 rats from each group is shown on the left, where the discrimination ratios (D2, A.) and the exploration differences (D1, B.) are shown. The bottom left graph (C.) shows the total amounts of object exploration (irrespective of whether to novel or familiar objects). The graphs on the right (n = 8) show the corresponding trial by trial data (D1, D.; D2, E.; total exploration, F.) for the revised groups that used only those Group Novel rats (n = 8) showing clear object recognition in the final session. For all graphs on the right side of the figure the data are cumulative, i.e., they are not independent across trials. Those conditions leading to a significant group difference by the end of 20 trials are indicated: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Mentions: While the initial (Session 1) object recognition scores (D1, D2) of the two groups appeared closely matched, they looked very different by Session 13 (Figure 3 left). This pattern was expected as in Session 13 the Group Novel rats explored one novel and one familiar object per trial. In contrast, Group Familiar rats were given two familiar objects per trial (as they had been explored on all preceding sessions), resulting in much lower D1 and D2 scores. This pattern was confirmed by more formal analyses.

Bottom Line: The hippocampal findings prompted Experiment 2.Across two replications, no evidence was found that hippocampal lesions impair nonvisual object recognition.These findings reveal a network of linked c-fos activations that share superficial features with those associated with visual recognition but differ in the fine details; for example, in the locus of the perirhinal cortex activation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus