Empirical tests of the functional significance of amygdala‐based modulation of hippocampal representations: evidence for multiple memory consolidation pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This series of experiments evaluated the effects of amygdala damage on the acquisition and long-term retention of variants of the water task, and tested the hypothesis that the amygdala is an essential neural system for consolidation of hippocampal memories. In Experiment 1, rats with large, neurotoxic lesions of the amygdala (AMYG) showed normal acquisition on the standard spatial version of the water task, as well as normal retention and decay rate profiles on the 24-h and 30-day retention probes. In Experiment 2, AMYG rats showed normal one-trial place learning abilities and could retain this one-trial information over a 24 h delay. Experiment 3 showed that the amygdala lesions used in this study were functionally significant because AMYG rats, from Experiment 2, showed impairments in a discriminative fear conditioning to context paradigm. Experiment 4 was a critical test of the idea that the amygdala is a decisive locus for consolidation of hippocampal memories. AMYG rats were trained to sub-asymptotic levels of performance on the standard version of the water task. Following each training session, the subjects were given a post-training peripheral injection of D-amphetamine. A probe test revealed that normal subjects and AMYG rats showed similar post-training memory improvement effects. Taken together, the results show that hippocampal memory consolidation processes do not require amygdala modulation. Arguments for an alternative view are presented suggesting that there are multiple memory consolidation pathways, one of which may depend on amygdala neural circuitry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".