ArticleBrain and behavior2022
The protocol for assessing olfactory working memory capacity in mice.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Diminished activation of excitatory neurons in the prelimbic cortex leads to impaired working memory capacity in mice.BMC biology · 2023Article
- The protocol for assessing olfactory working memory capacity in mice.Brain and behavior · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorking memory capacity (WMC) is the ability to maintain information over a few seconds. Although it has been extensively studied in healthy subjects and neuropsychiatric patients, few tasks have been developed to measure such changes in rodents. Many procedures have been used to measure WM in rodents, including the radial arm maze, the WM version of the Morris swimming task, and various delayed matching and nonmatching-to-sample tasks. It should be noted, however, that the memory components assessed in these procedures do not include memory capacity.
methodsWe developed an olfactory working memory capacity (OWMC) paradigm to assess the WMC of 3-month-old 5×FAD mice, a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. The task is divided into five phases: context adaptation, digging training, rule learning for nonmatching to a single sample odor (NMSS), rule learning for nonmatching to multiple sample odors (NMMS), and capacity testing.
resultsIn the NMSS rule-learning phase, there was no difference between wild-type (WT) mice and 5×FAD mice in the performance correct rate, correct option rate, and correct rejection rate. The WT mice and 5×FAD mice showed similar memory capacity in the NMMS rule-learning phase. After capacity test, we found that the WMC was significantly diminished in 5×FAD mice. As the memory load increased, 5×FAD mice also made significantly more errors than WT mice.
conclusionThe OWMC task, based on a nonmatch-to-sample rule, is a sensitive and robust behavioral assay that we validated as a reliable method for measuring WMC and exploring different components of memory in mice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.