MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1230781818 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0739

Dopaminergic regulation of limbic-striatal interplay

2007· article· en· W1230781818 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stan Floresco

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceNucleus accumbensLimbic systemDopamineDopaminergicGlutamatergicNeurochemicalNeurotransmissionPsychologyBasal gangliaPostsynaptic potentialBiologyReceptorGlutamate receptorCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurochemical, electrophysiological and behavioural evidence indicates that certain forms of goal-directed behaviours are mediated by complex and reciprocal interactions between limbic and dopamine (DA) inputs in the nucleus accumbens (NAc). Mesoaccumbens DA transmission appears to be compartmentalized; synaptic DA transmission is mediated by phasic burst firing of DA neurons, whereas extrasynaptic tonic DA levels are regulated by DA neuron population activity and limbic glutamatergic inputs to the NAc. DA release facilitated by limbic inputs and acting on D1 receptors can either potentiate or suppress neural activity driven by separate limbic inputs converging on the same postsynaptic NAc neurons. In turn, D1 receptors in the NAc mediate accuracy of search behaviour regulated by hippocampal-ventral striatal circuitries; D2 receptors appear to mediate motivational aspects of task performance. These findings suggest that dopaminergic modulation of limbic afferents to the NAc may be a cellular mechanism for input selection that governs the smooth coordination of behaviour by permitting information processed by one limbic region to temporarily exert control over the type and intensity of adaptive behavioural responses.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorFrench-language works237,207