ReviewFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2023
Challenges and advanced concepts for the assessment of learning and memory function in mice.
Review in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Protective role of hemokinin-1 against age-dependent spatial memory and attention decline in mice.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Renovating the Barnes maze for mouse models of dementia with STARR FIELD: A 4-day protocol for learning rate, retention, and cognitive flexibility.Methods (San Diego, Calif.) · 2026Article
- Concept Cells and the Neural Bases of Human Memory.Acta physiologica (Oxford, England) · 2026Review
- Development of an automated approach for investigating social learning in mice.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Towards learning and memory risk assessment with human brain organoids: barriers and opportunities.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Review
- Impaired behavioral flexibility and coping strategy shifts in 5xFAD mice in the novel Destruction-Building Test.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- A Scoping Review of Neurotoxic and Behavioral Outcomes Following Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Exposure in Post-Weaned Rodents.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- A framework for a low-cost system of automated gate control in assays of spatial cognition in fishes.Journal of fish biology · 2025Article
- Unravelling the nexus of stroke and dementia: Deciphering the role of secondary neurodegeneration in orchestrating cognitive decline.Neuroprotection (Chichester, England) · 2025Review
- Targeting synaptic plasticity to bridge translational gaps in sepsis-associated encephalopathy.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Review
- Lockbox enrichment facilitates manipulative and cognitive activities for mice.Open research Europe · 2024Article
- Mechanism of exacerbation of traumatic brain injury under warfarin anticoagulation in male mice.PloS one · 2024Article
- A bespoke water T-maze apparatus and protocol: an optimized, reliable, and repeatable method for screening learning, memory, and executive functioning in laboratory mice.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mechanisms underlying the formation and retrieval of memories are still an active area of research and discussion. Manifold models have been proposed and refined over the years, with most assuming a dichotomy between memory processes involving non-conscious and conscious mechanisms. Despite our incomplete understanding of the underlying mechanisms, tests of memory and learning count among the most performed behavioral experiments. Here, we will discuss available protocols for testing learning and memory using the example of the most prevalent animal species in research, the laboratory mouse. A wide range of protocols has been developed in mice to test, e.g., object recognition, spatial learning, procedural memory, sequential problem solving, operant- and fear conditioning, and social recognition. Those assays are carried out with individual subjects in apparatuses such as arenas and mazes, which allow for a high degree of standardization across laboratories and straightforward data interpretation but are not without caveats and limitations. In animal research, there is growing concern about the translatability of study results and animal welfare, leading to novel approaches beyond established protocols. Here, we present some of the more recent developments and more advanced concepts in learning and memory testing, such as multi-step sequential lockboxes, assays involving groups of animals, as well as home cage-based assays supported by automated tracking solutions; and weight their potential and limitations against those of established paradigms. Shifting the focus of learning tests from the classical experimental chamber to settings which are more natural for rodents comes with a new set of challenges for behavioral researchers, but also offers the opportunity to understand memory formation and retrieval in a more conclusive way than has been attainable with conventional test protocols. We predict and embrace an increase in studies relying on methods involving a higher degree of automatization, more naturalistic- and home cage-based experimental setting as well as more integrated learning tasks in the future. We are confident these trends are suited to alleviate the burden on animal subjects and improve study designs in memory research.
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.