4.3 Article

The role of the dorsal and ventral hippocampus in olfactory working memory

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF LEARNING AND MEMORY
卷 96, 期 2, 页码 361-366

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.nlm.2011.06.011

关键词

Dorsal hippocampus; Ventral hippocampus; Odor memory; Odor pattern separation; Working memory; Odor discrimination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Olfactory working memory and pattern separation for odor information was assessed in male rats using a matching-to-sample for odors paradigm. The odor set consisted of a five aliphatic acids with unbranched carbon chains that varied from two- to six-carbons in length. Each trial consisted of a sample phase followed by a choice phase. During the sample phase, rats would receive one of five different odors. Fifteen seconds later during the choice phase one of the previous odors was presented simultaneously side by side with a different odor that was based on the number of aliphatic acids that varied in the carbon chains from two- to six-carbons in length and rats were allowed to choose between the two odors. The rule to be learned in order to receive a food reward was to always choose the odor that occurred during the study phase. Odor separations of 1, 2, 3 or 4 were selected for each choice phase and represented the carbon chain difference between the study phase odor and the test phase odor. Once an animal reached a criterion of 80-90% correct across all temporal separations based on 40 trials, rats received a control, dorsal hippocampal, or ventral hippocampal lesion and were retested on the task. On postoperative trials, only the ventral hippocampal lesion group was impaired relative to both control and dorsal hippocampal groups groups. There were no effects on odor pattern separation. All groups of rats could discriminate between the odors. The data suggest that the ventral hippocampus, but not dorsal hippocampus, supports working memory for odor information. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据