MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anterograde and retrograde amnesia in rats with large hippocampal lesions

2001· article· en· W2022995891 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Winocur, Robert M. McDonald, Morris Moscovitch

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoAurora CollegeTrent UniversityBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrograde amnesiaAnterograde amnesiaHippocampal formationForgettingMemory consolidationNeurosciencePsychologyHippocampusAmnesiaEngramTemporal lobeCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A test of socially acquired food preferences was used to study the effects of large lesions to the hippocampal formation (HPC) on anterograde and retrograde memory in rats. In the anterograde test, rats with HPC lesions normally acquired the food preference but showed a faster rate of forgetting than control groups. When the food preference was acquired preoperatively, HPC groups exhibited a temporally graded retrograde amnesia in which memory was impaired when the preference was acquired within 2 days of surgery but not at longer delays. The results support the traditional theory that the HPC contributes to the consolidation of newly acquired information into a durable memory trace that is represented in other brain areas. Consistent with this view, the results indicate that, once a memory trace is consolidated, the HPC does not participate in its storage or retrieval. The possibility is considered that extrahippocampal areas in the medial temporal lobe are needed to maintain a memory trace throughout its existence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations128
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207