Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Cognition and Behavior

Fast Gamma Rhythms in the Hippocampus Promote Encoding of Novel Object–Place Pairings

Chenguang Zheng, Kevin Wood Bieri, Ernie Hwaun and Laura Lee Colgin
eNeuro 29 April 2016, 3 (2) ENEURO.0001-16.2016; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0001-16.2016
Chenguang Zheng
1Center for Learning and Memory, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-0805
2Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-0805
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Chenguang Zheng
Kevin Wood Bieri
1Center for Learning and Memory, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-0805
3Institute for Neuroscience, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-0805
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ernie Hwaun
1Center for Learning and Memory, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-0805
3Institute for Neuroscience, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-0805
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura Lee Colgin
1Center for Learning and Memory, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-0805
2Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-0805
3Institute for Neuroscience, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-0805
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Verification of target recording sites and behavioral effects in object–place association task. A, Histologic sections showing example recording sites in CA1 and CA3. B, A schematic explaining the object–place association task is shown. The behavioral task consisted of 3 familiarization days (F; Object A) and 3 d in which novel object–place pairings were presented. The novel-object place pairings included an object identity and location change (NO+NL; Object C), a location change only (NL; Object A′), and an object identity change only (NO; Object B). Each day consisted of three 10 min exploration sessions (S1, S2, S3) separated by 10 min rest periods, and the order of the conditions was randomly assigned for each animal. C, The discrimination index for the familiarization and novelty conditions, as well as control conditions in which no objects were presented. Grey dashed line indicates chance level. For NO+NL conditions, rats explored the novel object–place pairings significantly more than the familiar object–place pairings and significantly more than they explored the same locations when no objects were present. Because novel object–place pairings were presented in the second session, familiarization measures were also computed using the second session of familiarization or re-familiarization days (F) in this figure and all subsequent figures. D, The amount of time rats spent exploring familiar object–place pairings in Session 1 (S1) of the familiarization condition and the different novelty conditions. E, The amount of time rats spent exploring familiar (light blue bars; Object A indicated in white text) and novel (dark blue bars; Objects C, A′, and B indicated in white text) object–place pairings in Session 2 (S2) of the familiarization condition and the different novelty conditions. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. Data are presented as mean ± SEM in this figure and all subsequent figures.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Changes in slow and fast gamma power in CA1 in response to exploration of novel object–place pairings. A–C, Color-coded power across gamma frequencies in CA1 as a function of running speed, plotted during time periods of familiarity exploration versus novelty exploration, averaged across all CA1 tetrodes and rats. The time periods of exploration of familiar object–place pairing A in F conditions were time-matched with those during exploration of familiar object–place pairing A (top row) and novel object–place pairings C, A′, and B (bottom row) in NO+NL (A), NL (B), and NO (C) conditions, respectively. Note that x- and y-axes are shown in log scale. D, Changes in fast and slow gamma power between time-matched periods in the F condition and the three novelty conditions (NO+NL, NL, and NO), during exploration of familiar (A) and novel (ie, C, A′, and B) object–place pairings. Data from individual rats are shown in gray. *Indicates significantly (p < 0.05) different changes in gamma power from familiarization session to novelty session for exploration of novel object–place pairings compared to exploration of familiar object–place pairings; # and ## indicate that the change in gamma power between N and F sessions was significantly (#p < 0.05, ## p < 0.01) greater than zero.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    No significant changes in slow and fast gamma power in CA3 during exploration of novel object–place pairings. A–C, Same as in Figure 2A-C , except for CA3 recordings instead of CA1. D, Changes in fast and slow gamma power in CA3 between time-matched periods in the F condition and the three novelty conditions (NO+NL, NL, and NO) during exploration of familiar (A) and novel (ie, C, A′, and B) object–place pairings. Data from individual rats are shown in gray.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Changes in slow and fast gamma phase synchrony between CA3 and CA1 during exploration of novel object–place pairings. The difference in CA3–CA1 slow and fast gamma phase synchrony between exploration periods for novel and familiar object–place pairings in NO+NL (A), NL (B), and NO (C) conditions. The differences in slow and fast gamma interregional phase synchrony between the explorations periods for the two familiar object–place pairings in the F condition are also shown (D). Data from individual rats are shown in gray. **p < 0.01.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Phase-locking of CA3 and CA1 place cell spikes to CA1 slow and fast gamma during exploration of novel object–place pairings. A–C, Mean vector lengths of CA1 slow and fast gamma phase distributions were estimated for spike times of CA3 and CA1 place cells with place fields close to either familiar or novel object–place pairings in the novelty conditions. For the NO+NL condition, place cell spikes were significantly more phase-locked to fast gamma during exploration of the novel object–place pairing than during exploration of the familiar object–place pairing. D, Mean vector lengths of CA1 slow and fast gamma phase distributions were estimated for spike times of CA3 and CA1 place cells with fields near either of the familiar object–place pairings in the familiar condition. E, Example spike time-gamma phase distributions from individual place cells. Spike counts were normalized (ie, number of spikes in each bin/total spike count). A representative place cell from each cell category is shown for fast gamma (top row, red) and slow gamma (bottom row, blue). Grey lines indicate moving average (moving size = 2 bins). **p < 0.01.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    CA1 place cell spiking increased selectively in fast gamma periods during exploration of novel object–place pairings. A–C, Examples of color-coded rate maps of CA1 place cells that exhibited place fields close to the novel object–place pairs in the NO+NL (A), NL (B), and NO (C) conditions. Red indicates peak firing rate, dark blue represents no firing, and white pixels indicate unvisited areas. Rate maps constructed from spikes across the entire exploration session are shown in the left columns. Rate maps constructed from spike times during slow and fast gamma episodes are shown in the middle and right columns, respectively. Black dots indicate the defined place fields. Each map is shown scaled to the peak firing rate of the cell across the entire session, which is shown to the left. D, Mean in-field firing rates of CA1 place cells during slow and fast gamma episodes that occurred during exploration of novel or familiar object–place pairings. In these plots, slow and fast gamma episodes were detected from the same tetrodes on which the cells were recorded. E, The same as D, except that slow and fast gamma were detected using different tetrodes than the ones on which cells were recorded. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Changes in theta power, CA3–CA1 phase synchrony, and place cell firing patterns during exploration of novel object–place pairings. A–C, Color-coded theta power in CA1 (top rows) and CA3 (bottom rows) as a function of running speed during exploration of familiar and novel object–place pairings, averaged across all recordings for each region. As in Figures 2 and 3, the familiar object–place pair exploration periods in the F condition (first and third columns) were time-matched with those during exploration of familiar object–place pairs (second column) and novel object–place pairs (fourth column) in NO+NL (A), NL (B), and NO (C) conditions. D, E, No significant changes in CA1 (D) and CA3 (E) theta power occurred between time-matched periods in the F condition and the three novelty conditions (NO+NL, NL, and NO) during exploration of familiar and novel object–place pairings. Data from individual rats are shown in gray. F, CA3–CA1 theta phase synchrony did not significantly change between novel and familiar object–place pair exploration in NO+NL, NL, and NO conditions, nor between explorations of the two familiar object–place pairs in the F condition. Data from individual rats are shown in gray. G, Mean vector lengths of CA1 theta phase distributions for CA3 and CA1 place cell spike times in novelty and familiarization conditions. Theta phase-locking was higher during novel object exploration compared to familiar object exploration for the NO+NL condition. *p < 0.05.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1:

    Statistical table

    Fig.DescriptionData structureTestFactorDegrees of freedomStatistics valuep value
    a 1CDiscrimination indexNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsNovelty condition × data type interaction1,72F = 4.5680.036
    Novelty condition1, 72F = 5.2890.024
    Data type1, 72F = 9.4300.003
    Discrimination index in Session 2 of all conditionsNormal distributionRepeated measures ANOVANovelty condition3, 21F = 4.1750.018
    Post hoc:
    NO+NL vs F, p = 0.020;
    NL vs F, p = 0.108;
    NO vs F, p = 0.299;
    NO+NL vs NL, p = 0.223;
    NO+NL vs NO, p = 0.037
    Discrimination index in control sessionsNormal distributionRepeated-measures ANOVANovelty condition3, 21F = 1.8090.176
    Discrimination index in NO+NL conditionNormal distributionPaired t testData type9t = 4.7510.001
    Discrimination index in NL conditionNormal distributionPaired t testData type7t = 1.3450.221
    Discrimination index in NO conditionNormal distributionPaired t testData type9t = 1.2590.240
    Discrimination index in F conditionNormal distributionPaired t testData type9t = 0.3930.703
    b 1DExploration time in Session 1Normal distributionRepeated-measures ANOVANovelty condition3,21F = 1.2160.329
    c 2D,3DHippocampal gamma power change over running speed in novel and familiar conditionsNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsRunning speed1,5450F = 2.6090.106
    Brain region1,5450F = 85.640<0.001
    Object–place pairing type1,5450F = 99.128<0.001
    Gamma type1,5450F = 66.361<0.001
    Hippocampal gamma power change in novel and familiar conditionsNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: brain region × novelty condition × object–place pairing type × gamma type1,164F = 3.9840.048
    Object–place pairing type1,164F = 7.5000.007
    Gamma type1,164F = 3.9380.049
    d 2DCA1 gamma power change between novel and familiar conditionsNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: novelty condition × object–place pairing type × gamma type1,104F = 11.9530.001
    CA1 gamma power change between NO+NL and F conditionsBinomial distributionBinomial testN/AN/AFast gamma power change:
    Object C: p = 0.021;
    Object A: p = 0.109;
    Slow gamma power change:
    Object C: p = 0.754;
    Object A: p = 0.754
    CA1 gamma power change between NO+NL and F conditionsNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: object–place pairing type × gamma type1,36F = 6.9410.012
    Post hoc:
    Fast gamma: Obj A vs C, p = 0.011;
    Slow gamma: Obj A vs C, p = 0.791
    CA1 gamma power change between NL and F conditionsBinomial distributionBinomial testN/AN/AFast gamma power change:
    Object A’: p =0.008;
    Object A: p =0.289;
    Slow gamma power change:
    Object A’: p =1.000;
    Object A: p = 0.289
    CA1 gamma power change between NL and F conditionsNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: object–place pairing type × gamma type1,28F = 6.1090.020
    Post hoc:
    Fast gamma: Obj A vs A’, p = 0.169;
    Slow gamma: Obj A vs A’, p = 0.226
    CA1 gamma power change between NO and F conditionsBinomial distributionBinomial testN/AN/AFast gamma power change:
    Object B: p = 0.109;
    Object A: p = 0.109;
    Slow gamma power change:
    Object B: p = 0.754;
    Object A: p = 0.754
    CA1 gamma power change between NO and F conditionsNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsObject–place pairing type1,36F = 1.4060.243
    Gamma type1,36F = 3.1740.083
    Interaction: object–place pairing type × gamma type1,36F = 0.0540.817
    Post hoc:
    Fast gamma: Obj A vs B, p = 0.090;
    Slow gamma: Obj A vs B, p = 0.025
    CA1 gamma power change between novel and familiar conditions, using stricter criterion of explorationNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: novelty condition × object–place pairing type × gamma type1,104F = 5.0870.026
    CA1 gamma power change between NO+NL and F conditions, using stricter criterion of explorationBinomial distributionBinomial testN/AN/AFast gamma power change:
    Object C: p = 0.021;
    Object A: p = 0.344;
    Slow gamma power change:
    Object C: p = 0.344;
    Object A: p = 1.000
    CA1 gamma power change between NO+NL and F conditions, using stricter criterion of explorationNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: object–place pairing type × gamma type1,36F = 3.9530.054
    Post hoc:
    Fast gamma: Obj A vs C, p = 0.016;
    Slow gamma: Obj A vs C, p = 0.354
    CA1 gamma power change between NL and F conditions, using stricter criterion of explorationNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: object–place pairing type × gamma type1,28F = 4.2410.049
    Post hoc:
    Fast gamma: Obj A vs A’, p = 0.060;
    Slow gamma: Obj A vs A’, p = 0.806
    CA1 gamma power change between NO and F conditions, using stricter criterion of explorationNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsObject–place pairing type1,36F = 0.5270.473
    Gamma type1,36F = 0.0680.796
    Interaction: object–place pairing type × gamma type1,36F = 0.1070.745
    Post hoc:
    Fast gamma: Obj A vs B, p = 0.129;
    Slow gamma: Obj A vs B, p = 0.224
    e 3DCA3 gamma power change between NO+NL and F conditionsBinomial distributionBinomial testN/AN/AFast gamma power change:
    Object C: p = 0.219;
    Object A: p = 0. 219;
    Slow gamma power change:
    Object C: p = 0.219;
    Object A: p = 1.000
    CA3 gamma power change between NL and F conditionsBinomial distributionBinomial testN/AN/AFast gamma power change:
    Object A’: p = 0.625;
    Object A: p = 0.625;
    Slow gamma power change:
    Object A’: p = 0.625;
    Object A: p = 0.625
    CA3 gamma power change between NO and F conditionsBinomial distributionBinomial testN/AN/AFast gamma power change:
    Object B: p = 0.219;
    Object A: p = 0.688;
    Slow gamma power change:
    Object B: p = 0.688;
    Object A: p = 1.000
    CA3 gamma power change between novel and familiar conditionsNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: novelty condition × object–place pairing type × gamma type1,56F = 1.1380.291
    Interaction: object–place pairing type × gamma type1,56F = 1.1610.286
    Novelty condition1,56F = 0.2660.608
    Object–place pairing type1,56F = 0.9840.325
    Gamma type1,56F = 0.5200.474
    CA3 gamma power change between NO+NL and F conditionsNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: object–place pairing type × gamma type1,20F = 1.0450.319
    Post hoc:
    Fast gamma: Obj A vs C, p = 0.372;
    Slow gamma: Obj A vs C, p = 0.589
    f 4Gamma phase synchrony change between novel and familiar object–place pairingsNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: novelty condition × gamma type1,40F = 11.0050.002
    Gamma phase synchrony difference (C–A)Normal distributionPaired t testGamma type5t = 4.3160.008
    Gamma phase synchrony difference (A’–A)Normal distributionPaired t testGamma type3t = 0.4200.703
    Gamma phase synchrony difference (B–A)Normal distributionPaired t testGamma type5t = 1.7070.148
    g 5Mean vector length of gamma phase distributionsNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: novelty condition × cell type × gamma type1,398F = 3.9800.047
    5AMean vector length of gamma phase distributions in NO+NL conditionNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: cell type × gamma type1,110F = 4.8120.030
    Post hoc:
    Fast gamma: cells A vs cells C, p = 0.008;
    Slow gamma: cells A vs cells C, p = 0.928
    5BMean vector length of gamma phase distributions in NL conditionNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: cell type × gamma type1,100F = 4.1360.045
    Post hoc:
    Fast gamma: cells A vs cells A’, p = 0.159;
    Slow gamma: cells A vs cells A’, p = 0.428
    5CMean vector length of gamma phase distributions in NO conditionNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: cell type × gamma type1,132F = 0.4160.520
    Post hoc:
    Fast gamma: cells A vs cells B, p = 0.049;
    Slow gamma: cells A vs cells B, p = 0.163
    h 6DPlace cell in-field firing rates in all novel conditionsNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: novelty condition × cell type × gamma type1,146F = 0.5490.460
    Interaction: cell type × gamma type1,146F = 4.5380.035
    Place cell in-field firing rates in NO+NL conditionNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: cell type × gamma type1,56F = 4.5070.038
    Post hoc (sign test):
    Cell C: slow vs fast gamma, p = 0.039;
    Cell A: slow vs fast gamma, p = 0.238
    Place cell in-field firing rates in NL conditionNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: cell ype × gamma type1,38F = 33.532<0.001
    Post hoc (sign test):
    Cell A’: slow vs fast gamma, p < 0.008;
    Cell A: slow vs fast gamma, p = 0.092
    Place cell in-field firing rates in NO conditionNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: cell type × gamma type1,48F = 1.3220.256
    Cell type1,48F = 0.0150.902
    Gamma type1,48F = 0.0050.942
    i 6EPlace cell in-field firing rates in NO+NL condition (gamma detected by non-local EEG)Normal distributionSign testGamma typeN/AN/ACell C: slow vs fast gamma, p = 0.039;
    Cell A: slow vs fast gamma, p = 0.481
    Place cell in-field firing rates in NL condition (gamma detected by non-local EEG)Normal distributionSign testGamma typeN/AN/ACell A’: slow vs fast gamma, p = 0.070;
    Cell A: slow vs fast gamma, p = 0.267
    j 7D,EHippocampal theta power change between novel and familiar conditionsNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: brain region × novelty condition × object–place pairing type1,80F = 0.0010.976
    7DCA1 theta power change between novel and familiar conditionsNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: novelty condition × object–place pairing type1,52F = 3.4100.070
    CA1 theta power change between NO+NL and F conditionsNormal distributionPaired t testObject–place pairing type9t = 1.3170.220
    CA1 theta power change between NL and F conditionsNormal distributionPaired t testObject–place pairing type7t = 1.9860.087
    CA1 theta power change between NO and F conditionsNormal distributionPaired t testObject–place pairing type9t = 0.0410.968
    7ECA3 theta power change between novel and familiar conditionsNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: novelty condition × object–place pairing type1,28F = 0.6500.427
    CA3 theta power change between NO+NL and F conditionsNormal distributionPaired t testObject–place pairing type5t = 1.9340.111
    CA3 theta power change between NL and F conditionsNormal distributionPaired t testObject–place pairing type3t = 1.1090.348
    CA3 theta power change between NO and F conditionsNormal distributionPaired t testObject–place pairing type5t = 1.8490.124
    N/AHippocampal theta power change between novel and familiar conditions, using stricter criterion of explorationNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: brain region × novelty condition × object–place pairing type1,80F = 0.0490.825
    CA1 theta power change between novel and familiar conditions, using stricter criterion of explorationNormal distributionGeneralized linear mixed modelsInteraction: novelty condition × object–place pairing type1,52F = 0.0130.910
    CA1 theta power change between NO+NL and F conditions, using stricter criterion of explorationNormal distributionPaired t testObject–place pairing type9t = 1.2870.230
    CA1 theta power change between NL and F conditions, using stricter criterion of explorationNormal distributionPaired t testObject–place pairing type7t = 2.0400.081
    CA1 theta power change between NO and F conditions, using stricter criterion of explorationNormal distributionPaired t testObject–place pairing type9t = 0.7930.448
    k7FTheta phase synchrony change between novel and familiar object–place pairingsNormal distributionRepeated-measures ANOVANovelty condition3,9F = 2.4840.127
    l7GMean vector length of theta phase distributionsNormal distributionTwo-way ANOVAInteraction: novelty condition × cell type2,195F = 3.0850.048
    Mean vector length of theta phase distributions in NO+NL conditionNormal distributiont testcell type55t = 2.1920.033
    Mean vector length of theta phase distributions in NL conditionNormal distributiont testcell type50t = 0.8080.423
    Mean vector length of theta phase distributions in NO conditionNormal distributiont testcell type66t = 0.9660.338
Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 3 (2)
eNeuro
Vol. 3, Issue 2
March/April 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Fast Gamma Rhythms in the Hippocampus Promote Encoding of Novel Object–Place Pairings
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Fast Gamma Rhythms in the Hippocampus Promote Encoding of Novel Object–Place Pairings
Chenguang Zheng, Kevin Wood Bieri, Ernie Hwaun, Laura Lee Colgin
eNeuro 29 April 2016, 3 (2) ENEURO.0001-16.2016; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0001-16.2016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Fast Gamma Rhythms in the Hippocampus Promote Encoding of Novel Object–Place Pairings
Chenguang Zheng, Kevin Wood Bieri, Ernie Hwaun, Laura Lee Colgin
eNeuro 29 April 2016, 3 (2) ENEURO.0001-16.2016; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0001-16.2016
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • CA1
  • gamma oscillations
  • gamma rhythms
  • hippocampus
  • memory
  • place cells

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • A Very Fast Time Scale of Human Motor Adaptation: Within Movement Adjustments of Internal Representations during Reaching
  • TrkB Signaling Influences Gene Expression in Cortistatin-Expressing Interneurons
  • Optogenetic Activation of β-Endorphin Terminals in the Medial Preoptic Nucleus Regulates Female Sexual Receptivity
Show more New Research

Cognition and Behavior

  • Pairing mouse social and aversive stimuli across sexes does not produce social aversion in females
  • In-vivo analysis of medial perforant path-evoked excitation and inhibition in dentate granule cells
  • Altered Dopamine Signaling in Extinction-Deficient Mice
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.