Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37640740›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Memory capacity and prioritization in female mice.

Qinbo Qiao, Caroline Mairlot, Daniel Bendor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Qinbo QiaoInstitute of Behavioural Neuroscience (IBN), University College London (UCL), London, WC1H 0AP, UK.
Caroline MairlotInstitute of Behavioural Neuroscience (IBN), University College London (UCL), London, WC1H 0AP, UK.
Daniel BendorInstitute of Behavioural Neuroscience (IBN), University College London (UCL), London, WC1H 0AP, UK. d.bendor@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/T005475/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our brain's capacity for memory storage may be vast but is still finite. Given that we cannot remember the entirety of our experiences, how does our brain select what to remember and what to forget? Much like the triage of a hospital's emergency room, where urgent cases are prioritized and less critical patients receive delayed or even no care, the brain is believed to go through a similar process of memory triage. Recent salient memories are prioritized for consolidation, which helps create stable, long-term representations in the brain; less salient memories receive a lower priority, and are eventually forgotten if not sufficiently consolidated (Stickgold and Walker in Nat Neurosci 16(2):139-145, 2013). While rodents are a primary model for studying memory consolidation, common behavioral tests typically rely on a limited number of items or contexts, well within the memory capacity of the subject. A memory test allowing us to exceed an animal's memory capacity is key to investigating how memories are selectively strengthened or forgotten. Here we report a new serial novel object recognition task designed to measure memory capacity and prioritization, which we test and validate using female mice.

Indexed as

BrainMemory ConsolidationAnimalsEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleMemoryMental RecallMice

Identifiers

PMID37640740
PMCPMC10462704

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.