ArticleTrends in neurosciences2024
What does preferential viewing tell us about the neurobiology of recognition memory?
Article in Trends in neurosciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Too Little and Too Much: Balanced Hippocampal, But Not Medial Prefrontal, Neural Activity Is Required for Intact Novel Object Recognition in Rats.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Maternal immune activation alters infant attentional processing in a nonhuman primate model.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2025Article
- Effects of temporal lobe seizures on visual recognition memory in a non-human primate model.Epilepsy & behavior : E&B · 2025Article
- The curious interpretation of novel object recognition tests.Trends in neurosciences · 2025Review
- Quality Controls: The Role of Self-Corrective Science in Explorations of Primate Memory Systems.Hippocampus · 2025Article
- Photoperiod, food restriction and memory for objects and places in mice.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The two tests most widely used in nonhuman primates to assess the neurobiology of recognition memory produce conflicting results. Preferential viewing tests (e.g., visual paired comparison) produce robust impairments following hippocampal lesions, whereas matching tests (e.g., delayed nonmatching-to-sample) often show complete sparing. Here, we review the data, the proposed explanations for this discrepancy, and then critically evaluate those explanations. The most likely explanation is that preferential viewing tests are not a process-pure assessment of recognition memory, but also test elements of novelty-seeking, habituation, and motivation. These confounds likely explain the conflicting results. Thus, we propose that memory researchers should prefer explicit matching tests and readers interested in the neural substrates of recognition memory should give explicit matching tests greater interpretive weight.
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.