MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1569296673 · doi:10.1002/hipo.22179

Parallel processing of information about location in the amygdala, entorhinal cortex and hippocampus

2013· review· en· W1569296673 on OpenAlexafffund
Stéphane Gaskin, Norman M. White

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEntorhinal cortexNeuroscienceAmygdalaPsychologyHippocampusFornixWater mazeCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conditioned cue preference paradigm was used to study how rats use extra-maze cues to discriminate between 2 adjacent arms on an 8-arm radial maze, a situation in which most of the same cues can be seen from both arms but only one arm contains food. Since the food-restricted rats eat while passively confined on the food-paired arm no responses are reinforced, so the discrimination is due to Pavlovian stimulus-reward (or outcome) learning. Consistent with other evidence that rats must move around in an environment to acquire a spatial map, we found that learning the adjacent arms CCP (ACCP) required a minimum amount of active exploration of the maze with no reinforcers present prior to passive pairing of the extra-maze cues with the food reinforcer, an instance of latent learning. Temporary inactivation of the hippocampus during the pre-exposure sessions had no effect on ACCP learning, confirming other evidence that the hippocampus is not involved in latent learning. A series of experiments indentified a circuit involving fimbria-fornix and dorsal entorhinal cortex as the neural basis of latent learning in this situation. In contrast, temporary inactivation of the entorhinal cortex or hippocampus during passive training or during testing blocked ACCP learning and expression, respectively, suggesting that these two structures co-operate in using spatial information to learn the location of food on the maze during passive pairing and to express this combined information during testing. In parallel with these processes we found that the amygdala processes information leading to an equal tendency to enter both adjacent arms (even though only one was paired with food) suggesting that the stimulus information available to this structure is not sufficiently precise to discriminate between the ambiguous cues visible from the adjacent arms. Expression of the ACCP in normal rats depends on hippocampus-based learning to avoid the unpaired arm which competes with the amygdala-based tendency to enter that arm. In contrast, there is cooperation between amygdala- and hippocampus-based tendencies to enter the food-paired arm. These independent forms of learning contribute to the rat's ability to discriminate among spatial locations using ambiguous extra-maze cues.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207