Benjamin M. Basile, Spencer J. Waters, Elisabeth A. Murray
{"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":"21 1","pages":""},"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}
引用次数: 0
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.
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.