Impaired Spatial Performance in Rats with Retrosplenial Lesions: Importance of the Spatial Problem and the Rat Strain in Identifying Lesion Effects in a Swimming Pool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioral, electrophysiological, and anatomical evidence suggests that retrosplenial (RS) cortex (areas RSA and RSG) plays a role in spatial navigation. This conclusion has been questioned in recent work, suggesting that it is damage to the underlying cingulum bundle (CG) (areas CG and IG), and not RS, that disrupts spatial place learning (Aggleton et al., 2000). We revisited this issue by comparing Long-Evans rats, the strain used in studies that report RS deficits, to Dark Agouti rats, the strain in which no RS deficit has been reported. Rat groups with RS, RS + CG, or no lesion were tested on a place task in a swimming pool, a test of nonspatial and spatial learning, and a matching-to-place task, a relatively selective test of spatial learning. Long-Evans rats given RS and RS + CG lesions, either before or after training on the two tasks, were impaired on both tasks, a deficit not attributable to impaired visual acuity. Control Dark Agouti rats and RS Dark Agouti rats, although not different on the place task, were both significantly impaired relative to Long-Evans rats. The RS Dark Agouti group, however, was also impaired on the matching-to-place task. Thus, we show that RS cortex is part of an extended neural circuit involved in spatial behavior in both Long-Evans and Dark Agouti rats, but its role in the place task may be masked by an innate nonspatial deficit in Dark Agouti rats. The results are discussed in relation to the importance of assessing spatial learning with appropriate spatial tests, the problems of interpretation posed by rat strain differences, and the role of retrosplenial cortex in spatial behavior.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".