Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34270575›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

The rodent object-in-context task: A systematic review and meta-analysis of important variables.

Milou S C Sep, Marijn Vellinga, R Angela Sarabdjitsingh, Marian Joëls

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Posttraining noradrenergic stimulation maintains hippocampal engram reactivation and episodic-like specificity of remote memory.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Milou S C SepDepartment of Translational Neuroscience, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4715-7593
Marijn VellingaDepartment of Translational Neuroscience, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
R Angela SarabdjitsinghDepartment of Translational Neuroscience, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marian JoëlsDepartment of Translational Neuroscience, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental information plays an important role in remembering events. Information about stable aspects of the environment (here referred to as 'context') and the event are combined by the hippocampal system and stored as context-dependent memory. In rodents (such as rats and mice), context-dependent memory is often investigated with the object-in-context task. However, the implementation and interpretation of this task varies considerably across studies. This variation hampers the comparison between studies and-for those who design a new experiment or carry out pilot experiments-the estimation of whether observed behavior is within the expected range. Also, it is currently unclear which of the variables critically influence the outcome of the task. To address these issues, we carried out a preregistered systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42020191340) and provide an up-to-date overview of the animal-, task-, and protocol-related variations in the object-in-context task for rodents. Using a data-driven explorative meta-analysis we next identified critical factors influencing the outcome of this task, such as sex, testbox size and the delay between the learning trials. Based on these observations we provide recommendations on sex, strain, prior arousal, context (size, walls, shape, etc.) and timing (habituation, learning, and memory phase) to create more consensus in the set-up, procedure, and interpretation of the object-in-context task for rodents. This could contribute to a more robust and evidence-based design in future animal experiments.

Indexed as

MemoryAnimalsBehavior, AnimalFemaleHippocampusLearningMaleMiceRatsRodentia

Identifiers

PMID34270575
PMCPMC8284613
OpenAlexW3179168685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.