Long-Lasting Working Memories of Obstacles Established by Foreleg Stepping in Walking Cats Require Area 5 of the Posterior Parietal Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Walking animals rely on working memory to avoid obstacles. One example is the stepping of the hindlegs of quadrupeds over an obstacle. In this case, the obstacle is not visible at the time of hindleg stepping, because of its position between the fore and hindlegs, and working memory must be used to avoid it. We have previously shown that this memory is very precise and surprisingly long-lasting and that it depends on the stepping of the forelegs over the obstacle for its initiation. In this study, we test the hypothesis that area 5 in the posterior parietal cortex of cats is necessary for the maintenance of this long-lasting working memory. We report that small bilateral lesions to area 5 do not affect the amplitude of normal stepping of the hindlegs over obstacles, but they profoundly reduce the long-lasting working memory of obstacles. We propose that inputs to area 5 associated with foreleg stepping initiate long-lasting activity that maintains the memory of obstacle height in another brain region to guide the hindlegs over obstacles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".