Hippocampal damage causes retrograde amnesia for objects' visual, but not odour, properties in male rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Damage to the hippocampus produces profound retrograde amnesia, but odour and object discrimination memories can be spared in the retrograde direction. Prior lesion studies testing retrograde amnesia for object/odour discriminations are problematic due to sparing of large parts of the hippocampus, which may support memory recall, and/or the presence of uncontrolled, distinctive odours that may support object discrimination. To address these issues, we used a simple object discrimination test to assess memory in male rats. Two visually distinct objects, paired with distinct odour cues, were presented. One object was associated with a reward. Following training, neurotoxic hippocampal lesions were made using N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA). The rats were then tested on the preoperatively learned object discrimination problem, with and without the availability of odour or visual cues during testing. The rats were also postoperatively trained on a new object discrimination problem. Lesion sizes ranged from 67% to 97% of the hippocampus (average of 87%). On the preoperatively learned discrimination problem, the rats with hippocampal lesions showed preserved object discrimination memory when tested in the dark (i.e., without visual cues) but not when the explicit odour cues were removed from the objects. Hippocampal lesions increased the number of trials required to reach criterion but did not prevent rats from solving the postoperatively learned discrimination problem. Our results support the idea that long-term memories for odours, unlike recall of visual properties of objects, do not depend on the hippocampus in rats, consistent with previous observations that hippocampal damage does not cause retrograde amnesia for odour memories.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".