Lesions of basolateral and central amygdala differentiate conditioned cue preference learning with and without unreinforced preexposure.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the separated arms conditioned cue preference (CCP) task rats are trained by confining them in one arm of an eight-arm radial maze with food and in another arm on the opposite side of the maze with no food on alternate days. After two such trials, rats prefer the food-paired arm when allowed to move freely between the two arms, neither of which contains food. However, if the rats are preexposed to the maze by exploring it without food before training, no preference is observed and at least 4 training trials are required to produce a CCP, suggesting that unreinforced preexposure to the maze latently inhibits acquisition. If this interpretation is correct, preexposure should reduce the size of the preference acquired with both 2 and 4 training trials. In Experiment 1, this prediction was replicated for 2 training trials; however, with 4 training trials, eliminating preexposure also eliminated the CCP. A previous finding that basolateral amygdala lesions impair the CCP with preexposure and 4 training trials was replicated in Experiment 2, but similar lesions had no effect on the CCP in non-preexposed rats given 2 training trials. In contrast, lesions of the central nucleus impaired the 2 training trial CCP but had no effect on the 4 training trial CCP. This double dissociation suggests that the BLA-mediated 4 training trial CCP may be due to learning about the reward features of the maze space, while the central-nucleus-mediated 2 training trial CCP may be due to a conditioned approach response.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".