Dopamine D<sub>1</sub>versus D<sub>4</sub>Receptors Differentially Modulate the Encoding of Salient versus Nonsalient Emotional Information in the Medial Prefrontal Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dopamine (DA) transmission plays a critical role in the processing of emotionally salient information and in associative learning and memory processes. Within the mammalian brain, neurons within the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) are involved critically in the encoding, expression, and extinction of emotionally salient learned information. Within the mPFC, dopaminergic transmission is involved importantly in controlling attentional and motivational processes, particularly within the context of emotionally salient sensory information. Considerable evidence suggests differential roles for DA D(1)-like versus D(2)-like receptors, including the D(4) receptor subtype, in the regulation of neuronal activity and emotional processing within the mPFC. Using an olfactory fear-conditioning assay in rats, we compared the roles of DA D(1) versus D(4) receptor activation during the encoding and recall phases of emotional learning and memory. We report that specific activation of DA D(4) receptors within the mPFC strongly potentiates the salience of normally nonsalient emotional associative fear memories and blocks the encoding of suprathreshold conditioned fear associations. However, D(4) receptor activation has no effect on the recall of previously learned emotionally salient conditioned memories. In contrast, intra-mPFC D(1) receptor activation failed to increase the emotional salience of subthreshold fear stimuli but completely blocked the expression of previously learned emotionally relevant information, demonstrating that DA D(4) versus D(1) subtype receptor transmission within the mPFC plays distinct functional roles in the processing of emotionally salient versus nonsalient associative information and differentially modulates the encoding versus recall phases of emotional memory within the mPFC.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".