Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25225309›Full record

ReviewILAR journal2014

Assessing spatial learning and memory in rodents.

Charles V Vorhees, Michael T Williams

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ILAR journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 231 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
231citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

231 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

171 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Charles V Vorhees
Michael T Williams

Funding

DEVELOPMENTAL EFFECTS OF METHAMPHETAMINE-LIKE STIMULANTSR01DA006733 · NIDA · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI VORHEES, CHARLES V · 1991 to 2009
$2.3M
Effect of Lead, Manganese and Stress During DevelopmentR01ES015689 · NIEHS · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI WILLIAMS, MICHAEL T · 2006 to 2010
$1.8M
Effects of Neonatal MDMA on Brain and BehaviorR01DA021394 · NIDA · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI VORHEES, CHARLES V · 2006 to 2010
$1.4M
Transgenerational Inheritance of Epigenetic Effects of Polychlorinated BiphenylsR21ES023319 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI PUGA, ALVARO, RUBINSTEIN, JACK · 2013 to 2015
$934k
Latrophilin-3 and ADHD: A new potential mechanismR21MH101609 · NIMH · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI VORHEES, CHARLES V · 2013 to 2014
$421k
NIDA NIH HHS DA006733NIDA NIH HHS DA021394NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA006733NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA021394NIEHS NIH HHS ES015689NIEHS NIH HHS ES023319NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES015689NIEHS NIH HHS R21 ES023319NIMH NIH HHS MH101609NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH101609
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Maneuvering safely through the environment is central to survival of almost all species. The ability to do this depends on learning and remembering locations. This capacity is encoded in the brain by two systems: one using cues outside the organism (distal cues), allocentric navigation, and one using self-movement, internal cues and nearby proximal cues, egocentric navigation. Allocentric navigation involves the hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, and surrounding structures; in humans this system encodes allocentric, semantic, and episodic memory. This form of memory is assessed in laboratory animals in many ways, but the dominant form of assessment is the Morris water maze (MWM). Egocentric navigation involves the dorsal striatum and connected structures; in humans this system encodes routes and integrated paths and, when overlearned, becomes procedural memory. In this article, several allocentric assessment methods for rodents are reviewed and compared with the MWM. MWM advantages (little training required, no food deprivation, ease of testing, rapid and reliable learning, insensitivity to differences in body weight and appetite, absence of nonperformers, control methods for proximal cue learning, and performance effects) and disadvantages (concern about stress, perhaps not as sensitive for working memory) are discussed. Evidence-based design improvements and testing methods are reviewed for both rats and mice. Experimental factors that apply generally to spatial navigation and to MWM specifically are considered. It is concluded that, on balance, the MWM has more advantages than disadvantages and compares favorably with other allocentric navigation tasks.

Indexed as

CuesAnimalsBrainMaze LearningMemoryMiceOrientationRatsSpatial Learning

Identifiers

PMID25225309
PMCPMC4240437

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.