Caudate nucleus‐dependent navigational strategies are associated with increased use of addictive drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between navigational strategies and the use of abused substances in a sample of healthy young adults. Navigational strategies were assessed with the 4-on-8 virtual maze (4/8VM), a task previously shown to dissociate between hippocampal-dependent spatial navigational strategies and caudate nucleus-dependent stimulus-response navigational strategies. Spatial strategies involve learning the spatial relationships between the landmarks in an environment, while response learning strategies involve learning a rigid set of stimulus-response type associations, e.g., see the tree, turn left. We have shown that spatial learners have increased gray matter and fMRI activity in the hippocampus compared with response learners, while response learners have increased gray matter and fMRI activity in the caudate nucleus. We were interested in the prevalence of use of substances of abuse in spatial and response learners because of the evidence that people who score high on traits such as novelty seeking, sensation seeking, reward seeking, and impulsivity, are more cue-responsive and more likely to use substances of abuse. Since response learners show increased activity and gray matter in the caudate nucleus of the striatum, which is a brain area involved in addiction, we hypothesized that response learners would have a greater use of abused substances than spatial learners. Fifty-five young adults were tested on the 4/8VM and completed a time-line follow-back assessment of drug and alcohol use. We found that response learners had smoked a significantly greater number of cigarettes in their lifetime than spatial learners, were more likely to have used cannabis, and had double the lifetime alcohol consumption. We discuss the possible relationship between substance abuse and response strategies as well as the implications for the hippocampus, risks of neurological and psychiatric disorders, and healthy cognition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".