Patterns of retrograde amnesia for recent and remote incidental spatial learning in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A non-navigational test of incidental spatial learning was used to determine whether hippocampal damage causes temporally-graded retrograde amnesia (TGRA) for allocentric-spatial information. Rats were exposed to two identical objects in a circular open field for 7 min on seven consecutive days. In the 1-3 days after the last day of familiarization, rats received neurotoxic lesions of the hippocampal formation (HPC) or sham lesions. Another two groups received the same lesions 3 weeks after familiarization. The rats were then placed back in the open field with one object displaced, and the time spent in each of the quadrants as well as time spent exploring the objects was recorded. Rats that received HPC lesions 3 weeks but not 1-3 days after familiarization showed evidence of preserved remote spatial memory; however, their remote memory was expressed through different behavior than control rats. Rats with HPC lesions spent more time with the displaced object than with the object that remained in the same place, whereas control rats spent more time in the quadrant where the displaced object used to be. These results suggest that remote spatial memories may be preserved with a sufficiently long familiarization-to-surgery interval before HPC lesions, but that the nature of these memories may differ in quantity and/or quality from those of intact rats.
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".