MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984254389 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084543

Unilateral Lateral Entorhinal Inactivation Impairs Memory Expression in Trace Eyeblink Conditioning

2013· article· en· W1984254389 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephanie E. Tanninen, Mark D. Morrissey, Kaori Takehara‐Nishiuchi

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEyeblink conditioningPrefrontal cortexNeuroscienceEntorhinal cortexHippocampusEngramNeuroanatomy of memoryMemory formationPsychologyBiologyWorking memorySpatial memoryConditioningClassical conditioningCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Memory in trace eyeblink conditioning is mediated by an inter-connected network that involves the hippocampus (HPC), several neocortical regions, and the cerebellum. This network reorganizes after learning as the center of the network shifts from the HPC to the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). Despite the network reorganization, the lateral entorhinal cortex (LEC) plays a stable role in expressing recently acquired HPC-dependent memory as well as remotely acquired mPFC-dependent memory. Entorhinal involvement in recent memory expression may be attributed to its previously proposed interactions with the HPC. In contrast, it remains unknown how the LEC participates in memory expression after the network disengages from the HPC. The present study tested the possibility that the LEC and mPFC functionally interact during remote memory expression by examining the impact of pharmacological inactivation of the LEC in one hemisphere and the mPFC in the contralateral hemisphere on memory expression in rats. Memory expression one day and one month after learning was significantly impaired after LEC-mPFC inactivation; however, the degree of impairment was comparable to that after unilateral LEC inactivation. Unilateral mPFC inactivation had no effect on recent or remote memory expression. These results suggest that the integrity of the LEC in both hemispheres is necessary for memory expression. Functional interactions between the LEC and mPFC should therefore be tested with an alternative design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207