Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37809039›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2023

Challenges and advanced concepts for the assessment of learning and memory function in mice.

Benjamin Lang, Pia Kahnau, Katharina Hohlbaum, Paul Mieske, Niek P Andresen, Marcus N Boon, Christa Thöne-Reineke, Lars Lewejohann, Kai Diederich

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Concept Cells and the Neural Bases of Human Memory.Acta physiologica (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin LangAnimal Behavior and Laboratory Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Institute for Animal Welfare, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Pia KahnauFederal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Katharina HohlbaumScience of Intelligence, Research Cluster of Excellence, Berlin, Germany.
Paul MieskeAnimal Behavior and Laboratory Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Institute for Animal Welfare, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Niek P AndresenScience of Intelligence, Research Cluster of Excellence, Berlin, Germany.
Marcus N BoonScience of Intelligence, Research Cluster of Excellence, Berlin, Germany.
Christa Thöne-ReinekeAnimal Behavior and Laboratory Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Institute for Animal Welfare, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Lars LewejohannAnimal Behavior and Laboratory Animal Science, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Institute for Animal Welfare, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Kai DiederichFederal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment · DEFreie Universität Berlin · DETechnische Universität Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

animal cognitionanimal welfareautomated trackingecological validityhome cage analysislearning and memorysocial interaction

Identifiers

PMID37809039
PMCPMC10551171
OpenAlexW4386927460

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.