Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21693636›Full record

ArticleLearning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.)2011

Differing time dependencies of object recognition memory impairments produced by nicotinic and muscarinic cholinergic antagonism in perirhinal cortex.

Chris J Tinsley, Nadine S Fontaine-Palmer, Maria Vincent, Emma P E Endean, John P Aggleton, Malcolm W Brown, E Clea Warburton

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Cholinergic regulation of object recognition memory.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Antiamnesic and Neuroprotective Effects of an Aqueous Extract ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. In search of a recognition memory engram.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2015
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Contributions of area Te2 to rat recognition memory.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chris J TinsleyMRC Centre for Synaptic Plasticity, School of Physiological Sciences, Bristol University, United Kingdom. chris.tinsley@ntu.ac.uk
Nadine S Fontaine-Palmer
Maria Vincent
Emma P E Endean
John P Aggleton
Malcolm W Brown
E Clea Warburton
University of Bristol · GBCardiff University · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council S18861Medical Research Council G0401403Medical Research Council G9713086Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The roles of muscarinic and nicotinic cholinergic receptors in perirhinal cortex in object recognition memory were compared. Rats' discrimination of a novel object preference test (NOP) test was measured after either systemic or local infusion into the perirhinal cortex of the nicotinic receptor antagonist methyllycaconitine (MLA), which targets alpha-7 (α7) amongst other nicotinic receptors or the muscarinic receptor antagonists scopolamine, AFDX-384, and pirenzepine. Methyllycaconitine administered systemically or intraperirhinally before acquisition impaired recognition memory tested after a 24-h, but not a 20-min delay. In contrast, all three muscarinic antagonists produced a similar, unusual pattern of impairment with amnesia after a 20-min delay, but remembrance after a 24-h delay. Thus, the amnesic effects of nicotinic and muscarinic antagonism were doubly dissociated across the 20-min and 24-h delays. The same pattern of shorter-term but not longer-term memory impairment was found for scopolamine whether the object preference test was carried out in a square arena or a Y-maze and whether rats of the Dark Agouti or Lister-hooded strains were used. Coinfusion of MLA and either scopolamine or AFDX-384 produced an impairment profile matching that for MLA. Hence, the antagonists did not act additively when coadministered. These findings establish an important role in recognition memory for both nicotinic and muscarinic cholinergic receptors in perirhinal cortex, and provide a challenge to simple ideas about the role of cholinergic processes in recognition memory: The effects of muscarinic and nicotinic antagonism are neither independent nor additive.

Indexed as

AnimalsCerebral CortexMaleMemory, Short-TermMuscarinic AntagonistsNicotinic AntagonistsRatsReceptors, MuscarinicReceptors, NicotinicRecognition, PsychologyTimeMuscarinic AntagonistsNicotinic AntagonistsReceptors, MuscarinicReceptors, Nicotinic

Identifiers

PMID21693636
PMCPMC3125612
OpenAlexW2163114360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.