An investigation of the effects of hippocampal lesions in rats on pre‐ and postoperatively acquired spatial memory in a complex environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In previous work, we showed that adult rats that were reared socially for 3 months in a complex (village) environment retained allocentric spatial memory for that environment following hippocampal lesions (Winocur et al., (2005) Nat Neurosci 8:273–275). In the present series of experiments, we showed that 3 months of postoperative rearing did not confer the same benefits (Experiment 1), although hippocampal groups, with or without rearing experience, exhibited spatial learning after extensive training (Experiments 1 and 2). Experiment 3 showed that as little as 2 weeks of preoperative rearing in the village was sufficient to retain acquired spatial memories after hippocampal lesions. Probe testing revealed that, although rats with hippocampal lesions exhibited remarkably good memory for preoperatively learned locations in the village, they were impaired when changes in task demands required flexible use of existing spatial representations. In a direct test of flexibility (Experiment 4), preoperatively reared rats were administered a blockedroutes task in the original learning environment, in which on designated trials, a barrier was placed across one of the direct paths to the goal compartment. On encountering the barrier, control rats consistently selected the next most direct route, whereas rats with hippocampal lesions, despite using spatial strategies, made more errors and took longer to find the goal. The present results confirm that allocentric spatial memories can survive hippocampal damage but they are schematic in nature and less cohesive than those associated with cognitive maps in intact brains. As well, there was evidence that, although different processes are involved in their formation, the schematic memories that were acquired preoperatively and survived hippocampal lesions are essentially the same as those laboriously formed postoperatively after extensive training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".