Hippocampal damage produces retrograde but not anterograde amnesia for a cued location in a spontaneous exploratory task in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance in several memory tasks is known to be unaffected by hippocampal damage sustained before learning, but is severely disrupted if the same damage occurs after learning. Memories for preferred locations, or home bases, in exploratory tasks can be formed by rats with hippocampal damage, but it is unknown if the memory for a home base survives hippocampal damage. To examine this question, for 30 min each day for five consecutive days, rats explored a circular open field containing one local cue. By Day 5 the rats preferentially went directly to that location, spent the majority of their time at that location, made rapid direct trips to that location when returning from an excursion and so demonstrated that the location was a home base. Memory for the cued location was examined after a 24 h or 14-day interval with the cue removed. In Experiments 1 and 2, control rats and rats with prior N-methyl-D-aspartic acid hippocampal lesions demonstrated memory of the home base location by making direct trips to that location. In Experiment 3, rats that had first explored the open field and cue and then received hippocampal lesions showed no memory for the cued location. The absence of anterograde impairment vs. the presence of retrograde impairment for memory of a spatial home base confirms a role for the hippocampus in the retention of spatial memory acquired during exploration.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".