Roles of learning and motivation in preference behavior: Mediation by entorhinal cortex, dorsal and ventral hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the latent cue preference (LCP) task, water-deprived rats alternately drink a salt solution in one distinctive compartment of a conditioned cue preference (CCP) apparatus and water in the other compartment over 8 days (training trials). They are then given a choice between the two compartments with no solutions present (preference test). Previous findings showed that this training procedure results in two parallel forms of learning: conditioning to water-paired cues (a water-CCP) and latent learning of an association between salt and salt-paired compartment cues (a salt-LCP). Experiment 1 examined these two types of learning in isolation. Results showed that expression of the salt-LCP required salt deprivation during testing, but expression of the water-CCP did not require a deprivation state during testing. Other results showed that salt-LCP learning itself involves two distinct components: (1) the latent association among neutral cues in the salt-paired compartment, and (2) motivational information about salt deprivation during testing. Previous findings also demonstrated roles for the dorsal hippocampus (DH), ventral hippocampus (VH), and entorhinal cortex (EC) in salt-LCP learning. Experiment 2 examined the involvement of these structures during acquisition or expression of salt-LCP learning. Rats with cannulas aimed at DH, VH, or EC were given infusions of muscimol, either before exposure to the salt-paired, but not the water-paired, compartment during training or before the preference test. Inactivation of the DH or EC impaired both acquisition and expression of the association between salt and salt-paired compartment cues, while inactivation of the VH disrupted the influence of motivational information about salt deprivation required to express the salt-LCP. These results suggest unique roles for the EC-DH circuit and VH in salt-LCP learning, as well as a functional dissociation between the DH and VH.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".