How does a specific learning and memory system in the mammalian brain gain control of behavior?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review addresses a fundamental, yet poorly understood set of issues in systems neuroscience. The issues revolve around conceptualizations of the organization of learning and memory in the mammalian brain. One intriguing, and somewhat popular, conceptualization is the idea that there are multiple learning and memory systems in the mammalian brain and they interact in different ways to influence and/or control behavior. This approach has generated interesting empirical and theoretical work supporting this view. One issue that needs to be addressed is how these systems influence or gain control of voluntary behavior. To address this issue, we clearly specify what we mean by a learning and memory system. We then review two types of processes that might influence which memory system gains control of behavior. One set of processes are external factors that can affect which system controls behavior in a given situation including task parameters like the kind of information available to the subject, types of training experience, and amount of training. The second set of processes are brain mechanisms that might influence what memory system controls behavior in a given situation including executive functions mediated by the prefrontal cortex; switching mechanisms mediated by ascending neurotransmitter systems, the unique role of the hippocampus during learning. The issue of trait differences in control of different learning and memory systems will also be considered in which trait differences in learning and memory function are thought to potentially emerge from differences in level of prefrontal influence, differences in plasticity processes, differences in ascending neurotransmitter control, differential access to effector systems like motivational and motor systems. Finally, we present scenarios in which different mechanisms might interact. This review was conceived to become a jumping off point for new work directed at understanding these issues. The outcome of this work, in combination with other approaches, might improve understanding of the mechanisms of volition in human and non-human animals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".