MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009109547 · doi:10.1002/hipo.20286

Contribution of the anterior thalamic nuclei to conditional learning in rats

2007· article· en· W2009109547 on OpenAlexaff
Viviane Sziklas, Michael Petrides

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHippocampal formationNeurosciencePsychologyAssociative learningHippocampusDissociation (chemistry)Water mazeAssociative propertySpatial learningCognitive psychologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The anterior thalamic region is intimately linked anatomically and functionally with the hippocampus, which is critical for various forms of spatial learning. Rats with lesions to the anterior thalamic nuclei and a control group were trained on a visual-spatial conditional associative learning task in which they had to learn to go to one of two locations depending on the particular visual cue presented on each trial; the rats approached the cues from different directions. The animals were subsequently tested on a spatial working memory task, the eight-arm radial maze. Performance on both these tasks had previously been shown to be impaired by hippocampal lesions. Rats with anterior thalamic damage were able to acquire the conditional associative task at a rate comparable to that of the control animals, but were impaired on the radial maze task. The finding of a dissociation between the effects of lesions of the anterior thalamic nuclei on two different classes of behavior known to be associated with hippocampal function suggest that while different neural stations within the extended hippocampal circuit may all play a role in spatial learning, the role of each of these regions in such learning may be more selective than previously considered.

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)0.000
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207