MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Theta-Modulated Head Direction Cells in the Rat Anterior Thalamus

2011· article· en· W1980454714 on OpenAlexaff
Marian Tsanov, E. Chah, Seralynne D. Vann, Richard B. Reilly, Jonathan T. Erichsen, John P. Aggleton, Shane M. O’Mara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsBurstingNeuroscienceThalamusRhythmPopulationHead (geology)PhysicsBiologyPsychologyMedicineAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major tool in understanding how the brain processes information is the analysis of neuronal output at each hierarchical level along the pathway of signal propagation. Theta rhythm and head directionality are the two main signals found across all levels of Papez's circuit, which supports episodic memory formation. Here, we provide evidence that the functional interaction between both signals occurs at a subcortical level. We show that there is population of head direction cells (39%) in rat anteroventral thalamic nucleus that exhibit rhythmic spiking in the theta range. This class of units, termed HD-by-theta (head direction-by-theta) cells, discharged predominantly in spike trains at theta frequency (6-12 Hz). The highest degree of theta rhythmicity was evident when the animal was heading/facing in the preferred direction, expressed by the Gaussian peak of the directional tuning curve. The theta-rhythmic mode of spiking was closely related to the firing activity of local theta-bursting cells. We also found that 32% of anteroventral theta-bursting cells displayed a head-directional modulation of their spiking. This crossover between theta and head-directional signals indicates that anterior thalamus integrates information related to heading and movement, and may therefore actively modulate hippocampo-dencephalic information processing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations154
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207