FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2074887182> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2074887182 endingPage "1153" @default.
• W2074887182 startingPage "1149" @default.
• W2074887182 abstract "A fundamental aspect of episodic memory is that retrieval of information can occur when encoding is incidental and memory assessment is unexpected [1Singer R.A. Zentall T.R. Pigeons learn to answer the question “where did you just peck?” and can report peck location when unexpectedly asked.Learn. Behav. 2007; 35: 184-189Crossref PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar, 2Zentall T.R. Clement T.S. Bhatt R.S. Allen J. Episodic-like memory in pigeons.Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2001; 8: 685-690Crossref PubMed Scopus (135) Google Scholar, 3Zentall T.R. Singer R.A. Stagner J.P. Episodic-like memory: pigeons can report location pecked when unexpectedly asked.Behav. Processes. 2008; 79: 93-98Crossref PubMed Scopus (58) Google Scholar, 4Zhou W. Crystal J.D. Validation of a rodent model of episodic memory.Anim. Cogn. 2011; 14: 325-340Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar]. These features are difficult to model in animals because behavioral training likely gives rise to well-learned expectations about the sequence of events. Thus, the possibility remains that animals may solve an episodic memory test by using well-learned semantic rules without remembering the episode at memory assessment. Here we show that rats can answer an unexpected question after incidental encoding in a hippocampal-dependent manner, consistent with the use of episodic memory. Rats were initially trained to report about a recent event (food versus no food) and separately searched for food where there was no expectation of being asked about the presence of food. To test episodic memory, we gave rats the opportunity to incidentally encode the presence or absence of food and unexpectedly asked them to report about the recent event. Temporary inactivation of the CA3 region of the hippocampus with bilateral infusions of lidocaine selectively eliminated the ability of rats to answer the unexpected, but not the expected, question. Our studies suggest that rats remember an earlier episode after incidental encoding based upon hippocampal-dependent episodic memory. A fundamental aspect of episodic memory is that retrieval of information can occur when encoding is incidental and memory assessment is unexpected [1Singer R.A. Zentall T.R. Pigeons learn to answer the question “where did you just peck?” and can report peck location when unexpectedly asked.Learn. Behav. 2007; 35: 184-189Crossref PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar, 2Zentall T.R. Clement T.S. Bhatt R.S. Allen J. Episodic-like memory in pigeons.Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2001; 8: 685-690Crossref PubMed Scopus (135) Google Scholar, 3Zentall T.R. Singer R.A. Stagner J.P. Episodic-like memory: pigeons can report location pecked when unexpectedly asked.Behav. Processes. 2008; 79: 93-98Crossref PubMed Scopus (58) Google Scholar, 4Zhou W. Crystal J.D. Validation of a rodent model of episodic memory.Anim. Cogn. 2011; 14: 325-340Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar]. These features are difficult to model in animals because behavioral training likely gives rise to well-learned expectations about the sequence of events. Thus, the possibility remains that animals may solve an episodic memory test by using well-learned semantic rules without remembering the episode at memory assessment. Here we show that rats can answer an unexpected question after incidental encoding in a hippocampal-dependent manner, consistent with the use of episodic memory. Rats were initially trained to report about a recent event (food versus no food) and separately searched for food where there was no expectation of being asked about the presence of food. To test episodic memory, we gave rats the opportunity to incidentally encode the presence or absence of food and unexpectedly asked them to report about the recent event. Temporary inactivation of the CA3 region of the hippocampus with bilateral infusions of lidocaine selectively eliminated the ability of rats to answer the unexpected, but not the expected, question. Our studies suggest that rats remember an earlier episode after incidental encoding based upon hippocampal-dependent episodic memory. Rats answer an unexpected question after incidental encoding Answering an unexpected question is hippocampal CA3 dependent Rats remember an incidentally encoded episode based upon episodic memory Although events are not always known to be important when they occur, people can nonetheless remember details about such events. For example, eyewitness accounts rely on memories for incidental aspects of an earlier episode not known to be important when the episode occurred. Encoding occurs incidentally when apparently unimportant information is stored but it is not known at the time of encoding that the information may subsequently be useful. By contrast, information is explicitly encoded when it is known that the information is needed later. When information is encoded for use in an upcoming, expected test of retention, it is possible that the explicitly encoded information is used to generate a planned action; according to this view, at the time of the test, the remembered action can occur successfully without remembering the earlier episode. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether successful performance is based on a memory of the earlier episode or a planned action generated when information was explicitly encoded [1Singer R.A. Zentall T.R. Pigeons learn to answer the question “where did you just peck?” and can report peck location when unexpectedly asked.Learn. Behav. 2007; 35: 184-189Crossref PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar, 2Zentall T.R. Clement T.S. Bhatt R.S. Allen J. Episodic-like memory in pigeons.Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2001; 8: 685-690Crossref PubMed Scopus (135) Google Scholar, 3Zentall T.R. Singer R.A. Stagner J.P. Episodic-like memory: pigeons can report location pecked when unexpectedly asked.Behav. Processes. 2008; 79: 93-98Crossref PubMed Scopus (58) Google Scholar, 4Zhou W. Crystal J.D. Validation of a rodent model of episodic memory.Anim. Cogn. 2011; 14: 325-340Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar]. Indeed, it is possible that animals may have solved previous tests of episodic memory (e.g., [4Zhou W. Crystal J.D. Validation of a rodent model of episodic memory.Anim. Cogn. 2011; 14: 325-340Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar, 5Zhou W. Crystal J.D. Evidence for remembering when events occurred in a rodent model of episodic memory.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2009; 106: 9525-9529Crossref PubMed Scopus (88) Google Scholar, 6Roberts W.A. Feeney M.C. Macpherson K. Petter M. McMillan N. Musolino E. Episodic-like memory in rats: is it based on when or how long ago?.Science. 2008; 320: 113-115Crossref PubMed Scopus (119) Google Scholar, 7Clayton N.S. Dickinson A. Episodic-like memory during cache recovery by scrub jays.Nature. 1998; 395: 272-274Crossref PubMed Scopus (999) Google Scholar]) by using well-learned semantic rules without remembering the episode. Formally, learned rules stored in semantic memory, a nonepisodic memory system devoted to storing generic facts [8Tulving E. What is episodic memory?.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1993; 2: 67-70Crossref Scopus (362) Google Scholar], could be used to generate a planned action. By contrast, when information is encoded incidentally, it is not possible to transform information into a specific action plan because the nature of the subsequent memory test is not yet known. Hence, accurate performance observed on an unexpected test after incidental encoding would suggest that this performance is based upon memory of the earlier episode (i.e., retrieval of an episodic memory) [1Singer R.A. Zentall T.R. Pigeons learn to answer the question “where did you just peck?” and can report peck location when unexpectedly asked.Learn. Behav. 2007; 35: 184-189Crossref PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar, 2Zentall T.R. Clement T.S. Bhatt R.S. Allen J. Episodic-like memory in pigeons.Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2001; 8: 685-690Crossref PubMed Scopus (135) Google Scholar, 3Zentall T.R. Singer R.A. Stagner J.P. Episodic-like memory: pigeons can report location pecked when unexpectedly asked.Behav. Processes. 2008; 79: 93-98Crossref PubMed Scopus (58) Google Scholar, 4Zhou W. Crystal J.D. Validation of a rodent model of episodic memory.Anim. Cogn. 2011; 14: 325-340Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar]. We developed a new behavioral technique for evaluating episodic memory in rats that relies on incidental encoding (see Supplemental Experimental Procedures available online) and thus is not subject to potential problems of nonepisodic memory alternatives. The key insight is that rats must retrieve memory of an earlier episode to “answer” (via its behavior) an unexpected question about information that was encoded incidentally [1Singer R.A. Zentall T.R. Pigeons learn to answer the question “where did you just peck?” and can report peck location when unexpectedly asked.Learn. Behav. 2007; 35: 184-189Crossref PubMed Scopus (46) Google Scholar, 2Zentall T.R. Clement T.S. Bhatt R.S. Allen J. Episodic-like memory in pigeons.Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2001; 8: 685-690Crossref PubMed Scopus (135) Google Scholar, 3Zentall T.R. Singer R.A. Stagner J.P. Episodic-like memory: pigeons can report location pecked when unexpectedly asked.Behav. Processes. 2008; 79: 93-98Crossref PubMed Scopus (58) Google Scholar, 4Zhou W. Crystal J.D. Validation of a rodent model of episodic memory.Anim. Cogn. 2011; 14: 325-340Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar]. Importantly, at encoding it is not known that the information will be subsequently needed (i.e., encoding is incidental) or that it will be requested (i.e., the test is unexpected). We enabled incidental encoding by embedding two different tasks within the same radial maze (Figure 1). In one task, the rats foraged for food at multiple locations (five-arm radial maze task; Figure 1A). In a second task, the rats learned the “reporting” skill (T-maze task; Figure 1B) that would be used later in the unexpected question task. In the T-maze task, rats were rewarded for selecting a left/right turn after being presented with a sample of food or no food, respectively. Because the animals received extensive training, the T-maze task involves explicit encoding for the purpose of answering an expected question. Thus, presentation of food or no food may generate an action plan to turn left/right. Formally, an action plan based on semantic memory of a rule (e.g., if food → turn left) may be formed, but subsequently, the animal may only remember the response (left turn) without remembering the study episode (food/no food). Thus, successful performance on the T-maze task does not specifically implicate the use of episodic memory. The five-arm task provided rats with an opportunity to search for food when there was no expectation of being asked about the earlier availability of food. When foraging, the rat may remember the visited or not-yet-visited locations [9Cook R.G. Brown M.F. Riley D.A. Flexible memory processing by rats: use of prospective and retrospective information in the radial maze.J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 1985; 11: 453-469Crossref PubMed Scopus (131) Google Scholar, 10Kesner R.P. Retrospective and prospective coding of information: role of the medial prefrontal cortex.Exp. Brain Res. 1989; 74: 163-167Crossref PubMed Scopus (60) Google Scholar]. Because there is no expectation of being asked about the presence of food, there is no reason for the rat to specifically plan to turn left/right. To generate incidental encoding, we allowed rats to begin foraging for food and then unexpectedly confronted them with the opportunity to report whether or not they recently encountered food (Figures 2A and 2B ). Thus, a rat that incidentally encoded the availability of food would be able to successfully answer an unexpected question by retrieving a memory of the earlier episode. By contrast, a rat without episodic memory would be unable to answer an unexpected question after incidental encoding; hence, the probability of left and right turns should be equal in the absence of episodic memory. We therefore asked whether rats can answer an unexpected question after incidental encoding. Next, we experimentally manipulated their ability to do so by temporarily inactivating the hippocampus, an anatomical substrate thought to be critical for episodic memory. To our knowledge, our study is the first to document that rats remember an earlier episode that was incidentally encoded and retrieved when unexpectedly requested. Terminal accuracy in five-arm and T-maze tasks was 83% and 76%, respectively. To assess the ability of rats to answer an unexpected question, we allowed rats to forage for food in the five-arm radial maze task, thereby affording the opportunity to incidentally encode either the presence (food probe, Figure 2A) or the absence (no-food probe, Figure 2B) of food. When rats were confronted with the opportunity to report in the T-maze task (via its left/right turn) whether they remembered encountering food in the five-arm task (Figures 2A and 2B), they answered the unexpected question with a level of accuracy similar to that observed in training (Figure 3A ). The hippocampus is posited to be a critical processing center for episodic memory in humans [11Vargha-Khadem F.G.D.G. Gadian D.G. Watkins K.E. Connelly A. Van Paesschen W. Mishkin M. Differential effects of early hippocampal pathology on episodic and semantic memory.Science. 1997; 277: 376-380Crossref PubMed Scopus (1353) Google Scholar, 12Corkin S. What's new with the amnesic patient H.M.?.Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2002; 3: 153-160Crossref PubMed Scopus (463) Google Scholar, 13Tulving E. Markowitsch H.J. Episodic and declarative memory: role of the hippocampus.Hippocampus. 1998; 8: 198-204Crossref PubMed Scopus (869) Google Scholar] and episodic-like memory in nonhuman animals [14Eichenbaum H. The hippocampus and declarative memory: cognitive mechanisms and neural codes.Behav. Brain Res. 2001; 127: 199-207Crossref PubMed Scopus (357) Google Scholar, 15Ergorul C. Eichenbaum H. The hippocampus and memory for “what,” “where,” and “when”.Learn. Mem. 2004; 11: 397-405Crossref PubMed Scopus (207) Google Scholar, 16O'Brien J. Sutherland R.J. Evidence for episodic memory in a pavlovian conditioning procedure in rats.Hippocampus. 2007; 17: 1149-1152Crossref PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar]. Moreover, the CA3 region is postulated to mediate short-term elements of episodic memory processing [17Hunsaker M.R. Lee B. Kesner R.P. Evaluating the temporal context of episodic memory: the role of CA3 and CA1.Behav. Brain Res. 2008; 188: 310-315Crossref PubMed Scopus (83) Google Scholar, 18Kesner R.P. Hunsaker M.R. Warthen M.W. The CA3 subregion of the hippocampus is critical for episodic memory processing by means of relational encoding in rats.Behav. Neurosci. 2008; 122: 1217-1225Crossref PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar, 19Li J.-S. Chao Y.-S. Electrolytic lesions of dorsal CA3 impair episodic-like memory in rats.Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 2008; 89: 192-198Crossref PubMed Scopus (83) Google Scholar]. To test the hypothesis that answering an unexpected question requires episodic memory, we asked whether it was similarly hippocampal dependent (see Supplemental Experimental Procedures). If answering an unexpected question after incidental encoding requires episodic memory, then temporary inactivation of the hippocampus should selectively impair the ability of rats to answer an unexpected question without impacting the ability to answer an expected question. To assess accuracy in answering an unexpected question, we used the no-food probe described above (Figure 2B). To assess accuracy in answering an expected question, we used a control procedure (rotation probe, Figure 2C) that combined elements of the T-maze task while equating other features of the no-food probe. As in the T-maze task (but unlike the no-food probe), the rotation probe presented a no-food sample followed immediately by the opportunity to turn left or right. Thus, this control procedure can be solved by remembering a planned action (following the rationale outlined above for the T-maze task) without remembering the episode. To equate the control procedure with other aspects of the no-food probe, the rotation probe offered a no-food sample, and the sample was presented in the arm opposite to that used in training (i.e., rotated 180° with respect to the usual T-maze sample location); this rotation is equivalent to the average rotation in the no-food probe. Thus, the no-food and rotation probes (Figures 2B and 2C) varied the episodic memory demands while equating rotation and absence of food. Following training, stainless-steel guide cannulae were implanted bilaterally above the CA3 region of the hippocampus to enable us to temporarily inactivate this region using infusions of lidocaine. Accuracy was reestablished following surgical recovery, demonstrating that surgery alone did not disrupt performance. We found that temporarily inactivating CA3 of the hippocampus selectively interfered with answering the unexpected question but did not interfere with answering the expected question. Following local infusion of lidocaine bilaterally into CA3, accuracy in answering the unexpected question was significantly reduced relative to baseline [Figure 3B; t(14) = −3.34, p = 0.002, one-tailed t test; tests for the impact of infusions were one tailed following the a priori prediction that hippocampal inactivation would reduce accuracy], whereas accuracy in answering the expected question was not impaired [t(14) = −0.56, p = 0.29, one-tailed t test]. The selective reduction of accuracy on unexpected questions could be specifically attributed to effects of lidocaine infusion because accuracy was not impaired relative to baseline by infusions of vehicle [Figure 3B; no-food probe: t(14) = −0.55, p = 0.29; rotation probe: t(14) = −1.01, p = 0.16, one-tailed t test]. Accuracy in answering an unexpected question was impaired by infusion of lidocaine relative to vehicle infusion [t(14) = −3.06, p = 0.004, one-tailed t test]. Moreover, the suppressive effect of lidocaine on memory retrieval was selective for unexpected questions. Accuracy was reduced in the unexpected relative to expected question conditions following lidocaine infusion [t(14) = −1.87, p = 0.04, one-tailed t test]. Importantly, impairment in answering the unexpected question was selective to inactivation of the hippocampus with lidocaine when an episodic memory needed to be retrieved. These findings cannot be attributed to the order of testing, because the order of probes and infusions was counterbalanced using a Latin square design. When we restricted our analysis to the very first infusion probe, we observed the same pattern of selective impairment in accuracy; accuracy on the unexpected question with lidocaine was 0.25, which was lower than in the other infusion conditions, which were 0.80, 0.75, and 0.75 [t(15) = 2.01, p = 0.03, one-tailed t test]. Finally, repeated infusion did not impair accuracy (excluding impaired performance in the unexpected question following lidocaine infusion) as shown by above-chance accuracy on the final infusion [0.91 ± 0.09, mean ± SEM; t(10) = 4.50, p = 0.001]. Thus, the inactivation data suggest that the hippocampus is necessary to answer the unexpected question under conditions that varied expectations while equating other features. Histological analysis verified that the hippocampus was targeted bilaterally and that the center of the injection sites was localized to CA3 (Figures 3C and 3D). Our study demonstrates that rats can answer an unexpected question after incidental encoding of an earlier episode. Inactivation of CA3 eliminated the ability of rats to answer the unexpected question but did not impair performance in answering the expected question. These observations strongly suggest that answering an unexpected question is hippocampal dependent. We propose that rats needed to retrieve a memory of the recent episode (food/no food) to accurately answer the unexpected question. Rats may report the availability of food using either of two strategies. The T-maze task can be solved by a response-mediated strategy in which the rat makes a turning response after sample presentation (e.g., food → turn left). An alternative way to solve the task is to use a spatially mediated strategy in which the rat navigates to a place on the maze after sample presentation (e.g., food → left side of maze). In T-maze training, these two strategies led to equivalent performance (i.e., they were confounded). By rotating the sample position in the probes, these two strategies were unconfounded, thereby dissociating response-mediated and spatially mediated strategies. Indeed, it has previously been shown that response-mediated and spatially mediated strategies are concurrently available and are mediated by different neural systems involving the hippocampus and striatum, respectively [20De Leonibus E. Costantini V.J.A. Massaro A. Mandolesi G. Vanni V. Luvisetto S. Pavone F. Oliverio A. Mele A. Cognitive and neural determinants of response strategy in the dual-solution plus-maze task.Learn. Mem. 2011; 18: 241-244Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar, 21Packard M.G. Glutamate infused posttraining into the hippocampus or caudate-putamen differentially strengthens place and response learning.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1999; 96: 12881-12886Crossref PubMed Scopus (251) Google Scholar, 22Packard M.G. McGaugh J.L. Inactivation of hippocampus or caudate nucleus with lidocaine differentially affects expression of place and response learning.Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 1996; 65: 65-72Crossref PubMed Scopus (1173) Google Scholar, 23Yin H.H. Knowlton B.J. Contributions of striatal subregions to place and response learning.Learn. Mem. 2004; 11: 459-463Crossref PubMed Scopus (171) Google Scholar]; with extended training, rats shift from a hippocampal-dependent spatial strategy to a striatal-dependent response strategy [20De Leonibus E. Costantini V.J.A. Massaro A. Mandolesi G. Vanni V. Luvisetto S. Pavone F. Oliverio A. Mele A. Cognitive and neural determinants of response strategy in the dual-solution plus-maze task.Learn. Mem. 2011; 18: 241-244Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar, 21Packard M.G. Glutamate infused posttraining into the hippocampus or caudate-putamen differentially strengthens place and response learning.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1999; 96: 12881-12886Crossref PubMed Scopus (251) Google Scholar, 22Packard M.G. McGaugh J.L. Inactivation of hippocampus or caudate nucleus with lidocaine differentially affects expression of place and response learning.Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 1996; 65: 65-72Crossref PubMed Scopus (1173) Google Scholar, 23Yin H.H. Knowlton B.J. Contributions of striatal subregions to place and response learning.Learn. Mem. 2004; 11: 459-463Crossref PubMed Scopus (171) Google Scholar]. Our data are consistent with the hypothesis that rats use a response-mediated strategy, as expected [20De Leonibus E. Costantini V.J.A. Massaro A. Mandolesi G. Vanni V. Luvisetto S. Pavone F. Oliverio A. Mele A. Cognitive and neural determinants of response strategy in the dual-solution plus-maze task.Learn. Mem. 2011; 18: 241-244Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar, 21Packard M.G. Glutamate infused posttraining into the hippocampus or caudate-putamen differentially strengthens place and response learning.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1999; 96: 12881-12886Crossref PubMed Scopus (251) Google Scholar, 22Packard M.G. McGaugh J.L. Inactivation of hippocampus or caudate nucleus with lidocaine differentially affects expression of place and response learning.Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 1996; 65: 65-72Crossref PubMed Scopus (1173) Google Scholar, 23Yin H.H. Knowlton B.J. Contributions of striatal subregions to place and response learning.Learn. Mem. 2004; 11: 459-463Crossref PubMed Scopus (171) Google Scholar]. Performance on probes (excluding impaired performance in the unexpected question following lidocaine infusion) was significantly above chance with respect to a response-mediated strategy [0.77 ± 0.04, mean ± SEM; t(15) = 6.36, p < 0.0001], which is simultaneously below chance performance with respect to a spatial strategy. We hypothesize that a rotation probe does not require episodic memory for two reasons. First, after the study phase, there is nothing unexpected about the test. Second, the study phase is identical to training (despite using a different start location) for a rat that relies on a response-mediated strategy; our rats received 318 (Figure 3A) and at least 504 (Figure 3B) trials in the T-maze task prior to any probe, by which point they are likely to rely on a striatal-response system [20De Leonibus E. Costantini V.J.A. Massaro A. Mandolesi G. Vanni V. Luvisetto S. Pavone F. Oliverio A. Mele A. Cognitive and neural determinants of response strategy in the dual-solution plus-maze task.Learn. Mem. 2011; 18: 241-244Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar, 21Packard M.G. Glutamate infused posttraining into the hippocampus or caudate-putamen differentially strengthens place and response learning.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1999; 96: 12881-12886Crossref PubMed Scopus (251) Google Scholar, 22Packard M.G. McGaugh J.L. Inactivation of hippocampus or caudate nucleus with lidocaine differentially affects expression of place and response learning.Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 1996; 65: 65-72Crossref PubMed Scopus (1173) Google Scholar, 23Yin H.H. Knowlton B.J. Contributions of striatal subregions to place and response learning.Learn. Mem. 2004; 11: 459-463Crossref PubMed Scopus (171) Google Scholar]. Thus, the ability to solve the rotation probe was not expected to require an intact hippocampus because well-trained habits have previously been suggested to be striatal dependent [21Packard M.G. Glutamate infused posttraining into the hippocampus or caudate-putamen differentially strengthens place and response learning.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1999; 96: 12881-12886Crossref PubMed Scopus (251) Google Scholar, 22Packard M.G. McGaugh J.L. Inactivation of hippocampus or caudate nucleus with lidocaine differentially affects expression of place and response learning.Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 1996; 65: 65-72Crossref PubMed Scopus (1173) Google Scholar]. It is unlikely that rats expected “unexpected” questions for three reasons. First, the rats received many five-arm study phases that were not followed by an assessment of food/no food. Second, right- and left-turn responses in the five-arm task were equally likely to be rewarded, given the random selection of arm baiting in the study phase of the five-arm task. Third, hippocampal inactivation eliminated the ability to answer the unexpected but not the expected question. By contrast, the striatum, which is postulated to underlie habit learning, may mediate the ability of rats to answer the expected question [20De Leonibus E. Costantini V.J.A. Massaro A. Mandolesi G. Vanni V. Luvisetto S. Pavone F. Oliverio A. Mele A. Cognitive and neural determinants of response strategy in the dual-solution plus-maze task.Learn. Mem. 2011; 18: 241-244Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar, 21Packard M.G. Glutamate infused posttraining into the hippocampus or caudate-putamen differentially strengthens place and response learning.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 1999; 96: 12881-12886Crossref PubMed Scopus (251) Google Scholar, 22Packard M.G. McGaugh J.L. Inactivation of hippocampus or caudate nucleus with lidocaine differentially affects expression of place and response learning.Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 1996; 65: 65-72Crossref PubMed Scopus (1173) Google Scholar, 23Yin H.H. Knowlton B.J. Contributions of striatal subregions to place and response learning.Learn. Mem. 2004; 11: 459-463Crossref PubMed Scopus (171) Google Scholar]. Finally, although radial maze tasks use baited locations, eating is incidental to efficient navigation [24Timberlake W. White W. Winning isn't everything: Rats need only food deprivation and not food reward to efficiently traverse a radial arm maze.Learn. Motiv. 1990; 21: 153-163Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar]. Moreover, a no-food probe is a particularly novel condition because earlier experience with foraging in five-arm locations involved encountering food rather than the absence of food. In conclusion, our results suggest that rats remember an incidentally encoded episode based upon hippocampal-dependent episodic memory. Our earlier work showed that, at the time of a memory assessment, rats remember a specific earlier event including when in the past the event occurred, what happened, and where it took place [5Zhou W. Crystal J.D. Evidence for remembering when events occurred in a rodent model of episodic memory.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2009; 106: 9525-9529Crossref PubMed Scopus (88) Google Scholar]. In a previous study, we showed that rats can answer a question when unexpectedly tested in a different context, but a limitation of that work was that the information was not incidentally encoded [4Zhou W. Crystal J.D. Validation of a rodent model of episodic memory.Anim. Cogn. 2011; 14: 325-340Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar]. Thus, it is possible that rats in the earlier study explicitly encoded information to be used at testing, at which point they may have flexibly used that information. This concern does not apply to the present research because encoding was incidental. Moreover, temporary inactivation of the hippocampus, in the present research, allowed us to experimentally manipulate the ability of rats to answer an unexpected question after incidental encoding. One benefit of studying cognition in animals is that it may provide insight into impairments in cognition observed in humans. Cognitive impairments in humans are debilitating, and developing insight into the origins of such impairments offers a tool to improve the effectiveness of treatments. Significant obstacles nonetheless impede the development of animal models of disordered cognition with both face and predictive validity. Although there is a long history of studying learning and memory in animals, these types of cognitive processes may not match those observed clinically (e.g., Alzheimer's disease features severe impairments in episodic memory [25Bäckman L. Andersson J.L. Nyberg L. Winblad B. Nordberg A. Almkvist O. Brain regions associated with episodic retrieval in normal aging and Alzheimer's disease.Neurology. 1999; 52: 1861-1870Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 26Egerházi A. Berecz R. Bartók E. Degrell I. Automated Neuropsychological Test Battery (CANTAB) in mild cognitive impairment and in Alzheimer's disease.Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry. 2007; 31: 746-751Crossref PubMed Scopus (153) Google Scholar, 27Le Moal S. Reymann J.M. Thomas V. Cattenoz C. Lieury A. Allain H. Effect of normal aging and of Alzheimer's disease on, episodic memory.Dement. Geriatr. Cogn. Disord. 1997; 8: 281-287Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar]). Thus, it is possible that drug development programs may identify agents effective at the preclinical level that subsequently fail when translated to a clinical trial in humans. Ultimately, the expansion of the suite of cognitive processes that may be modeled in animals may translate to improved therapies for debilitating memory impairments observed in humans [28Crystal J.D. Animal models of human cognition.in: Vonk J. Shackelford T. Oxford Handbook of Comparative Evolutionary Psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford2012: 261-270Crossref Scopus (9) Google Scholar]. All experimental procedures were approved by the Indiana University Bloomington Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and followed national guidelines. This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health grant R01MH080052 to J.D.C. Download .pdf (.05 MB) Help with pdf files Document S1. Supplemental Experimental Procedures" @default.
• W2074887182 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2074887182 creator A5012489562 @default.
• W2074887182 creator A5047117050 @default.
• W2074887182 creator A5059667320 @default.
• W2074887182 date "2012-06-01" @default.
• W2074887182 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
• W2074887182 title "Rats Answer an Unexpected Question after Incidental Encoding" @default.
• W2074887182 cites W1562191902 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W1766797326 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W1969929921 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W1971819054 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W1989109048 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W1990128575 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W1999884740 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2003040861 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2015468244 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2022815030 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2025275727 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2028961849 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2036326015 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2038686225 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2049191904 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2053292397 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2058706194 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2064864838 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2068309224 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2083422851 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2088445784 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2104469372 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2105279376 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2107395536 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2121584908 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2124190705 @default.
• W2074887182 cites W2148509289 @default.
• W2074887182 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.04.040" @default.
• W2074887182 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3376895" @default.
• W2074887182 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22633809" @default.
• W2074887182 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2074887182 type Work @default.
• W2074887182 sameAs 2074887182 @default.
• W2074887182 citedByCount "71" @default.
• W2074887182 countsByYear W20748871822012 @default.
• W2074887182 countsByYear W20748871822013 @default.
• W2074887182 countsByYear W20748871822014 @default.
• W2074887182 countsByYear W20748871822015 @default.
• W2074887182 countsByYear W20748871822016 @default.
• W2074887182 countsByYear W20748871822017 @default.
• W2074887182 countsByYear W20748871822018 @default.
• W2074887182 countsByYear W20748871822019 @default.
• W2074887182 countsByYear W20748871822020 @default.
• W2074887182 countsByYear W20748871822021 @default.
• W2074887182 countsByYear W20748871822022 @default.
• W2074887182 countsByYear W20748871822023 @default.
• W2074887182 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2074887182 hasAuthorship W2074887182A5012489562 @default.
• W2074887182 hasAuthorship W2074887182A5047117050 @default.
• W2074887182 hasAuthorship W2074887182A5059667320 @default.
• W2074887182 hasBestOaLocation W20748871821 @default.
• W2074887182 hasConcept C125411270 @default.
• W2074887182 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2074887182 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2074887182 hasConcept C78458016 @default.
• W2074887182 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2074887182 hasConceptScore W2074887182C125411270 @default.
• W2074887182 hasConceptScore W2074887182C169760540 @default.
• W2074887182 hasConceptScore W2074887182C54355233 @default.
• W2074887182 hasConceptScore W2074887182C78458016 @default.
• W2074887182 hasConceptScore W2074887182C86803240 @default.
• W2074887182 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W2074887182 hasLocation W20748871821 @default.
• W2074887182 hasLocation W20748871822 @default.
• W2074887182 hasLocation W20748871823 @default.
• W2074887182 hasLocation W20748871824 @default.
• W2074887182 hasOpenAccess W2074887182 @default.
• W2074887182 hasPrimaryLocation W20748871821 @default.
• W2074887182 hasRelatedWork W1828691184 @default.
• W2074887182 hasRelatedWork W1903732681 @default.
• W2074887182 hasRelatedWork W1991523530 @default.
• W2074887182 hasRelatedWork W2002128513 @default.
• W2074887182 hasRelatedWork W2020824267 @default.
• W2074887182 hasRelatedWork W2031436818 @default.
• W2074887182 hasRelatedWork W2057739827 @default.
• W2074887182 hasRelatedWork W2075354549 @default.
• W2074887182 hasRelatedWork W2119103177 @default.
• W2074887182 hasRelatedWork W2092874662 @default.
• W2074887182 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W2074887182 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2074887182 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2074887182 magId "2074887182" @default.
• W2074887182 workType "article" @default.