Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31985896›Full record

ArticleCurrent protocols in neuroscience2020

Investigating Memory Updating in Mice Using the Objects in Updated Locations Task.

Destiny S Wright, Kasuni K Bodinayake, Janine L Kwapis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current protocols in neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Muscarinic receptor activation overrides boundary conditions on memory updating in a calcium/calmodulin-dependent manner.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Molecular Mechanisms of Reconsolidation-Dependent Memory Updating.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
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

3 authors.

Destiny S WrightDepartment of Biology, Center for Molecular Investigation of Neurological Disorders (CMIND), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Kasuni K BodinayakeDepartment of Biology, Center for Molecular Investigation of Neurological Disorders (CMIND), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Janine L KwapisDepartment of Biology, Center for Molecular Investigation of Neurological Disorders (CMIND), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.

Funding

Epigenetic regulation of the circadian gene Per1 in age-related memory impairmentsR00AG056596 · NIA · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI KWAPIS, JANINE LYNN · 2019 to 2021
$747k
Epigenetic regulation of the circadian gene Per1 in age-related memory impairmentsK99AG056596 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI KWAPIS, JANINE LYNN · 2017 to 2018
$201k
NIA NIH HHS K99 AG056596NIA NIH HHS K99/R00 AG056596NIA NIH HHS R00 AG056596
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the laboratory, memory is typically studied as a de novo experience, in which a naïve animal is exposed to a discrete learning event that is markedly different from its past experiences. Most real-world memories, however, are updates-modifications or additions-to existing memories. This is particularly true in the aging, experienced brain. To better understand memory updating, we have developed a new behavioral paradigm called the objects in updated locations (OUL) task. OUL relies on hippocampus-dependent spatial learning and has the advantage of being able to test both the original memory and the updated information in a single test session. Further, OUL relies on incidental learning that avoids unnecessary stress that might hinder the performance of aging animals. In OUL, animals first learn the location of two identical objects in a familiar context. This memory is then updated by moving one object to a new location. Finally, to assess the animals' memory for the original and the updated information, all animals are given a test session in which they are exposed to four copies of the object: two in the original training locations, one in the updated location, and one in a novel location. By comparing exploration of the novel location to the familiar locations, we can infer whether the animal remembers the original and updated object locations. OUL is a simple but powerful task that could provide new insights into the cellular, circuit-level, and molecular mechanisms that support memory updating. © 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Indexed as

AnimalsExploratory BehaviorHippocampusMemoryMental RecallMiceMice, Inbred C57BLSpatial Learningaginghippocampusobject memoryreconsolidationupdating

Identifiers

PMID31985896
PMCPMC8061236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.