| Title |
Memory systems in the rat: effects of reward probability, context, and congruency between working and reference memory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-016-0964-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
William A. Roberts, Nicole A. Guitar, Heidi L. Marsh, Hayden MacDonald |
| Abstract |
The interaction of working and reference memory was studied in rats on an eight-arm radial maze. In two experiments, rats were trained to perform working memory and reference memory tasks. On working memory trials, they were allowed to enter four randomly chosen arms for reward in a study phase and then had to choose the unentered arms for reward in a test phase. On reference memory trials, they had to learn to visit the same four arms on the maze on every trial for reward. Retention was tested on working memory trials in which the interval between the study and test phase was 15 s, 15 min, or 30 min. At each retention interval, tests were performed in which the correct WM arms were either congruent or incongruent with the correct RM arms. Both experiments showed that congruency interacted with retention interval, yielding more forgetting at 30 min on incongruent trials than on congruent trials. The effect of reference memory strength on the congruency effect was examined in Experiment 1, and the effect of associating different contexts with working and reference memory on the congruency effect was studied in Experiment 2. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 16% |
| Researcher | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 6 | 32% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,311,744
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,394
of 1,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,062
of 298,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#29
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,456 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.