Retrograde and anterograde object recognition in rats with hippocampal lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retrograde and anterograde object-recognition memory was assessed in rats with cytotoxic lesions of the hippocampal formation (HPC), using a paradigm based on the natural tendency of rats to spend more time exploring novel objects than familiar objects. The rats were allowed to explore a sample object for 5 min/day on 5 consecutive days, either 5 weeks or 1 week before surgery. After surgery, retrograde recognition was assessed by comparing the amount of time spent exploring the sample versus a novel object in a free-choice situation. Control rats spent more time exploring the novel object than the sample objects from both presurgery time periods, whereas rats with HPC lesions did not discriminate between the novel objects and sample objects from either presurgery time period. Despite their deficits on the retrograde recognition test, the rats with HPC lesions performed like control rats on anterograde recognition tests, displaying a strong exploratory preference for novel objects over sample objects, with retention delays of either 15 min or 24 h. The findings suggest that extrahippocampal circuitry is capable of supporting object recognition, but only if the HPC does not participate in encoding the original encounter with the object.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".