OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Behavioural brain research
Mar 15, 2015;281 250-7.

Relative recency influences object-in-context memory.

Shu K E Tam, Charlotte Bonardi, Jasper Robinson
Author Information
  1. Shu K E Tam: School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom. Electronic address: eric.tam@ndcn.ox.ac.uk.
  2. Charlotte Bonardi: School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom. Electronic address: charlotte.bonardi@nottingham.ac.uk.
  3. Jasper Robinson: School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom. Electronic address: jasper.robinson@nottingham.ac.uk.
PMID: 25546721 DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.12.024

Abstract

In two experiments rats received training on an object-in-context (OIC) task, in which they received preexposure to object A in context x, followed by exposure to object B in context y. In a subsequent test both A and B are presented in either context x or context y. Usually more exploration is seen of the object that has not previously been paired with the test context, an effect attributed to the ability to remember where an object was encountered. However, in the typical version of this task, object A has also been encountered less recently than object B at test. This is precisely the arrangement in tests of 'relatively recency' (RR), in which more remotely presented objects are explored more than objects experienced more recently. RR could contaminate performance on the OIC task, by enhancing the OIC effect when animals are tested in context y, and masking it when the test is in context x. This possibility was examined in two experiments, and evidence for superior performance in context y was obtained. The implications of this for theoretical interpretations of recognition memory and the procedures used to explore it are discussed.

Keywords

Associative learning Discrimination Object recognition Pavlovian conditioning Priming Recognition memory

References

  1. Behav Processes. 2003 Apr 28;62(1-3):27-48 [PMID: 12729967]
  2. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2012 Jan;38(1):74-83 [PMID: 22103695]
  3. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1956 Feb;49(1):90-2 [PMID: 13295415]
  4. Hippocampus. 2013 May;23(5):352-66 [PMID: 23389958]
  5. Behav Brain Res. 2015 May 15;285:1-9 [PMID: 25446743]
  6. J Neurosci. 2013 Oct 2;33(40):15716-25 [PMID: 24089480]
  7. Behav Brain Res. 1998 Dec;97(1-2):107-13 [PMID: 9867236]
  8. Behav Brain Res. 2000 Jun 1;110(1-2):67-72 [PMID: 10802304]
  9. Behav Brain Res. 2004 Jan 5;148(1-2):79-91 [PMID: 14684250]
  10. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1990 Aug 29;329(1253):179-86 [PMID: 1978363]
  11. Behav Brain Res. 1988 Nov 1;31(1):47-59 [PMID: 3228475]
  12. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43698 [PMID: 22928019]
  13. Learn Mem. 2002 Mar-Apr;9(2):49-57 [PMID: 11992015]
  14. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2011 Apr;37(2):189-99 [PMID: 21319917]
  15. Behav Neurosci. 2007 Feb;121(1):218-23 [PMID: 17324066]
  16. Science. 2010 Dec 3;330(6009):1408-10 [PMID: 21127256]
  17. Learn Mem. 2010 Apr 21;17(5):241-5 [PMID: 20410060]
  18. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2001 Sep 29;356(1413):1453-65 [PMID: 11571036]
  19. J Neurosci. 2007 Mar 14;27(11):2948-57 [PMID: 17360918]
  20. J Neurosci. 2004 May 12;24(19):4596-604 [PMID: 15140931]
  21. Behav Brain Sci. 1999 Jun;22(3):425-44; discussion 444-89 [PMID: 11301518]
  22. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1974 Jun;86(6):1100-9 [PMID: 4209603]
  23. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2000 Apr;10(2):200-4 [PMID: 10753791]
  24. Behav Neurosci. 2005 Apr;119(2):557-66 [PMID: 15839802]
  25. Behav Neurosci. 1997 Dec;111(6):1184-96 [PMID: 9438788]
  26. Behav Neurosci. 2011 Jun;125(3):396-403 [PMID: 21480692]
  27. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2014 Jan;40(1):106-15 [PMID: 24000908]
  28. Behav Processes. 2003 Apr 28;62(1-3):5-25 [PMID: 12729966]
  29. Annu Rev Psychol. 1993;44:453-95 [PMID: 8434894]
  30. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Jan;64(1):65-73 [PMID: 20680891]
  31. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 1997 Mar;67(2):112-20 [PMID: 9075239]
  32. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2013 Apr;39(2):174-9 [PMID: 23421400]
  33. Hippocampus. 2010 Oct;20(10):1139-53 [PMID: 19847786]
  34. J Neurosci. 1998 Aug 15;18(16):6568-82 [PMID: 9698344]
  35. Behav Brain Res. 1999 Mar;99(2):191-200 [PMID: 10512585]
  36. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2016 Oct;69(10):1969-95 [PMID: 24853316]
  37. J Neurosci. 2004 Feb 25;24(8):1948-53 [PMID: 14985436]
  38. Behav Brain Res. 2010 Dec 31;215(2):310-7 [PMID: 19850082]

Grants

  1. BB/F013191/1/Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  2. BB/E019196/Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  3. BB/C006283/1/Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

MeSH Term

Animals
Behavior, Animal
Choice Behavior
Conditioning, Classical
Discrimination, Psychological
Male
Memory
Pattern Recognition, Visual
Rats
Rats, Inbred Strains
Recognition, Psychology
Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Article has an altmetric score of 1

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0contextobjectytestOICtaskxBmemorytwoexperimentsreceivedobject-in-contextpresentedeffectencounteredrecentlyRRobjectsperformancerecognitionratstrainingpreexposurefollowedexposuresubsequenteitherUsuallyexplorationseenpreviouslypairedattributedabilityrememberHowevertypicalversionalsolesspreciselyarrangementtests'relativelyrecency'remotelyexploredexperiencedcontaminateenhancinganimalstestedmaskingpossibilityexaminedevidencesuperiorobtainedimplicationstheoreticalinterpretationsproceduresusedexplorediscussedRelativerecencyinfluencesAssociativelearningDiscriminationObjectPavlovianconditioningPrimingRecognition

Similar Articles

Cited By