The ventral hippocampus, but not the dorsal hippocampus is critical for learned approach‐avoidance decision making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The resolution of an approach-avoidance conflict induced by ambivalent information involves the appraisal of the incentive value of the outcomes and associated stimuli to orchestrate an appropriate behavioral response. Much research has been directed at delineating the neural circuitry underlying approach motivation and avoidance motivation separately. Very little research, however, has examined the neural substrates engaged at the point of decision making when opposing incentive motivations are experienced simultaneously. We hereby examine the role of the dorsal and ventral hippocampus (HPC) in a novel approach-avoidance decision making paradigm, revisiting a once popular theory of HPC function, which posited the HPC to be the driving force of a behavioral inhibition system that is activated in situations of imminent threat. Rats received pre-training excitotoxic lesions of the dorsal or ventral HPC, and were trained to associate different non-spatial cues with appetitive, aversive and neutral outcomes in three separate arms of the radial maze. On the final day of testing, a state of approach-avoidance conflict was induced by simultaneously presenting two cues of opposite valences, and comparing the time the rats spent interacting with the superimposed 'conflict' cue, and the neutral cue. The ventral HPC-lesioned group showed significant preference for the conflict cue over the neutral cue, compared to the dorsal HPC-lesioned, and control groups. Thus, we provide evidence that the ventral, but not dorsal HPC, is a crucial component of the neural circuitry concerned with exerting inhibitory control over approach tendencies under circumstances in which motivational conflict is experienced.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".