Hippocampal spatial mapping and the acquisition of competing responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Response reversal learning is facilitated in many species, including humans, when competing responses occur in separate contexts. This suggests hippocampal maps may facilitate the acquisition of competing responses and is consistent with the hypothesis that contextual encoding permits rapid acquisition of new behaviors in similar environments. To test this hypothesis, the pattern of Arc expression was examined after rats completed a series of left/right response reversals in a T-maze. This reversal training occurred in the same room, two different rooms, or within a single room but with the maze enclosed in wall-length curtains of different configurations (i.e., black/white square or circle). Across CA1 and CA3, successive T-maze exposures in the same room recruited the same cells to repeatedly transcribe Arc, while a unique population of cells transcribed Arc in response to each of two different rooms as well as to the two unique curtain configurations in the same room. The interference from original learning that was evident on the first reversal in animals without a context switch was absent in groups that experienced changes in room or curtain configuration. However, only the use of unique rooms, and not changes in the curtained enclosure, facilitated learning across response reversals relative to the groups exposed to only one room. Thus, separate hippocampal maps appear to provide protection from the original learning interference but do not support improved reversals over trials. The present data suggest changes in heading direction input, rather than remapping, are the source of facilitation of reversal learning.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".