偏好观看对识别记忆的神经生物学有何启示?

IF 14.6 1区 医学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES Trends in Neurosciences Pub Date : 2024-04-05 DOI:10.1016/j.tins.2024.03.003
Benjamin M. Basile, Spencer J. Waters, Elisabeth A. Murray
{"title":"偏好观看对识别记忆的神经生物学有何启示?","authors":"Benjamin M. Basile, Spencer J. Waters, Elisabeth A. Murray","doi":"10.1016/j.tins.2024.03.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":23325,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Neurosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":14.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What does preferential viewing tell us about the neurobiology of recognition memory?\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin M. Basile, Spencer J. Waters, Elisabeth A. Murray\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tins.2024.03.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23325,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trends in Neurosciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":14.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trends in Neurosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2024.03.003\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2024.03.003","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在非人灵长类动物中最广泛用于评估识别记忆神经生物学的两种测试产生了相互矛盾的结果。偏好观察测试(如视觉配对比较)在海马发生病变后会产生严重的损伤,而匹配测试(如延迟非匹配到样本)则常常显示出完全的损伤。在此,我们回顾了相关数据、对这一差异提出的解释,然后对这些解释进行了批判性评估。最有可能的解释是,偏好观看测试并不是对识别记忆的纯过程评估,它还测试了寻求新奇、习惯化和动机等因素。这些混杂因素很可能解释了相互矛盾的结果。因此,我们建议记忆研究人员应优先选择显性匹配测试,而对识别记忆神经基质感兴趣的读者则应给予显性匹配测试更大的解释权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What does preferential viewing tell us about the neurobiology of recognition memory?

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Trends in Neurosciences
Trends in Neurosciences 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
26.50
自引率
1.30%
发文量
123
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: For over four decades, Trends in Neurosciences (TINS) has been a prominent source of inspiring reviews and commentaries across all disciplines of neuroscience. TINS is a monthly, peer-reviewed journal, and its articles are curated by the Editor and authored by leading researchers in their respective fields. The journal communicates exciting advances in brain research, serves as a voice for the global neuroscience community, and highlights the contribution of neuroscientific research to medicine and society.
期刊最新文献
Neuroimmune interactions in the development and chronification of migraine headache Subscription and Copyright Information Advisory Board and Contents Getting stress-related disorders under control: the untapped potential of neurofeedback Object-oriented olfaction: challenges for chemosensation and for chemosensory research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1