Home › Research › Hippocampus size on brain scans
Spatial memory, recognition memory, and the hippocampus
Broadbent NJ, Squire LR, Clark RE.. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2004-09-27
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
There is wide agreement that spatial memory is dependent on the integrity of the hippocampus, but the importance of the hippocampus for nonspatial tasks, including tasks of object recognition memory is not as clear. We examined the relationship between hippocampal lesion size and both spatial memory and object recognition memory in rats. Spatial memory was impaired after bilateral dorsal hippocampal lesions that encompassed 30-50% total volume, and as lesion size increased from 50% to approximately 100% of total hippocampal volume, performance was similarly impaired. In contrast, object recognition was intact after dorsal hippocampal lesions that damaged 50-75% of total hippocampal volume and was impaired only after larger lesions that encompassed 75-100% of hippocampal volume. Last, ventral hippocampal lesions that encompassed approximately 50% of total hippocampal volume impaired spatial memory but did not affect object recognition memory. These findings show that the hippocampus is important for both spatial memory and recognition memory. However, spatial memory performance requires more hippocampal tissue than does recognition memory.
Key findings
- These findings show that the hippocampus is important for both spatial memory and recognition memory.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2004 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 15452348) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Broadbent, N. J., Squire, L. R., & Clark, R. E. (2004). Spatial memory, recognition memory, and the hippocampus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0406344101
Vancouver
Broadbent NJ, Squire LR, Clark RE. Spatial memory, recognition memory, and the hippocampus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2004. doi:10.1073/pnas.0406344101. PMID: 15452348.
BibTeX
@article{broadbent2004-15452348,
author = {Broadbent, N. J. and Squire, L. R. and Clark, R. E.},
title = {{Spatial memory, recognition memory, and the hippocampus}},
journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America},
year = {2004},
doi = {10.1073/pnas.0406344101},
pmid = {15452348},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0406344101}
}
Related studies in Hippocampus size on brain scans
Also tagged “disorder”
492 studies in the library carry the topic tag “disorder”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 492 tagged studies.