ArticleCurrent research in toxicology2024
Tests for learning and memory in rodent regulatory studies.
Article in Current research in toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Neurotropic potential and docking investigations of newly synthesized triazolopyridine and triazolothienopyridine derivatives.RSC advances · 2026Article
- Pharmacological Targeting of Peroxisome Proliferator-activated Receptors for Prevention of Radiation-induced Cognitive Decline.Annals of neurosciences · 2026Review
- Protocol for the standardized design of Morris water maze experiments and statistical analysis using SPSS.STAR protocols · 2026Article
- Galactic cosmic radiation produces sex-specific, circuit-selective cognitive vulnerability: countermeasure trade-offs revealed by multi-domain assessment.Research square · 2026Article
- Virtual Morris Water Task: Procedures and Protocols for the Assessment of Spatial Navigation and Memory.Current protocols · 2026Article
- [Relationship between cerebral dominance and learning styles in Anesthesiology residents].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Observational
- Towards learning and memory risk assessment with human brain organoids: barriers and opportunities.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Review
- Can Theta Burst Electromagnetic Fields Disrupt Learning in Planaria? Evidence of Impaired Fear-Conditioned Responses.Bioelectromagnetics · 2025Article
- Neonicotinoid pesticides: evidence of developmental neurotoxicity from regulatory rodent studies.Frontiers in toxicology · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
For decades, regulatory guidelines for safety assessment in rodents for drugs, chemicals, pesticides, and food additives with developmental neurotoxic potential have recommended a single test of learning and memory (L&M). In recent years some agencies have requested two such tests. Given the importance of higher cognitive function to health, and the fact that different types of L&M are mediated by different brain regions assessing higher functions represents a step forward in providing better evidence-based protection against adverse brain effects. Given the myriad of tests available for assessing L&M in rodents this leads to the question of which tests best fit regulatory guidelines. To address this question, we begin by describing the central role of two types of L&M essential to all mammalian species and the regions/networks that mediate them. We suggest that the tests recommended possess characteristics that make them well suited to the needs in regulatory safety studies. By brain region, these are (1) the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex for spatial navigation, which assesses explicit L&M for reference and episodic memory and (2) the striatum and related structures for egocentric navigation, which assesses implicit or procedural memory and path integration. Of the tests available, we suggest that in this context, the evidence supports the use of water mazes, specifically, the Morris water maze (MWM) for spatial L&M and the Cincinnati water maze (CWM) for egocentric/procedural L&M. We review the evidentiary basis for these tests, describe their use, and explain procedures that optimize their sensitivity.
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.