ArticleHippocampus2019
The puzzle of spontaneous alternation and inhibition of return: How they might fit together.
Article in Hippocampus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Angiotensin II-Mediated Neuroinflammation in the Hippocampus Contributes to Neuronal Deficits and Cognitive Impairment in Heart Failure Rats.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2023Article
- The intersection between the oculomotor and hippocampal memory systems: empirical developments and clinical implications.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2020
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Two isolated spatial phenomena share a similar "been there; done that" effect on spatial behavior. Originally discovered in rodent learning experiments, spontaneous alternation is a tendency for the organism to visit a different arm in a T-maze on subsequent trials. Originally discovered in human studies of attention, inhibition of return is a tendency for the organism to orient away from a previously attended location. Whereas spontaneous alternation was identified by O'Keefe & Nadel as dependent on an intact hippocampus, inhibition of return is dependent on neural structures that participate in oculomotor control (the superior colliculus, parietal and frontal cortex). Despite the isolated literatures, each phenomenon has been assumed to reflect a basic novelty-seeking process, avoiding places previously visited or locations attended. In this commentary, we explore and compare the behavioral manifestations and neural underpinnings of these two phenomena, and suggest what is still needed to determine whether they operate in parallel or serial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31157942What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.