ArticleScientific reports2024
Assessment of retention and attenuation of motor-learning memory by repeated rotor-rod analyses.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low-Dose Digoxin Ameliorates Age-Related Motor Learning Deficits in Mice.Neurochemical research · 2026Article
- The Effectiveness of an Exercise Program Based on Motor Learning Principles for the Correction of the Forward Head Posture: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Brain sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retention of acquired learning memory is essential for reasonable behavior and crisis avoidance of individuals. Therefore, establishment of a system suitable for analysis of the retention/attenuation of acquired memory is desired. In the present study, mice were conducted on the repeated rotor-rod test, consisting of two series of experiments (Series 1 and 2) of 10 trials each. When rotating speed was 9 rpm, retention time on the rod was gradually increased and reached the maximum value within 10 trials in Series 1. When Series 2 was performed 1 or 3 days after Series 1, retention time of trials 1-3 in Series 2 was not significantly different from that of trials 8-10 in Series 1. On the other hand, retention time of trials 1-3 in Series 2 was significantly declined from that of trials 8-10 in Series 1 when Series 2 was conducted day 7, and returned to the initial level, the same level with trials 1-3 in Series 1, when Series 2 was conducted on days 14 or 30. These results indicate that acquired motor-learning memory is retained for 3 days at least, began to decline by day 7 and returned to the initial level by day 14. In older mice of 10-11 months old, there was a delay in the acquisition of motor learning in Day 0, whereas the retention was not impaired in Day 7. The repeated rotor-rod analyses may useful for research on factors affecting retention/attenuation and acquisition of motor-learning memory and proceed our understanding of motor-learning memory.
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.