MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1797206668 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhv177

Spatial Reference Memory is Associated with Modulation of Theta–Gamma Coupling in the Dentate Gyrus

2015· article· en· W1797206668 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Bastien Bott, Marc–Antoine Muller, Jesse Jackson, Julien Aubert, Jean‐Christophe Cassel, Chantal Mathis, Romain Goutagny

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersUniversité de Strasbourg
KeywordsDentate gyrusHippocampal formationNeuroscienceHippocampusPsychologyCoupling (piping)Spatial memoryWorking memoryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial reference memory in rodents represents a unique opportunity to study brain mechanisms responsible for encoding, storage and retrieval of a memory. Even though its reliance on hippocampal networks has long been established, the precise computations performed by different hippocampal subfields during spatial learning are still not clear. To study the evolution of electrophysiological activity in the CA1-dentate gyrus axis of the dorsal hippocampus over an iterative spatial learning paradigm, we recorded local field potentials in behaving mice using a newly designed appetitive version of the Barnes maze. We first showed that theta and gamma oscillations as well as theta-gamma coupling are differentially modulated in particular hippocampal subfields during the task. In addition, we show that dentate gyrus networks, but not CA1 networks, exhibit a transient learning-dependent increase in theta-gamma coupling specifically at the vicinity of the target area in the maze. In contrast to previous immediate early-gene studies, our results point to a long-lasting involvement of dentate networks in navigational memory in the Barnes maze. Based on these findings, we propose that theta-gamma coupling might represent a mechanism by which hippocampal areas compute relevant information.

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)0.000
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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Citations57
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207