MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014136593 · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.122.1.27

Neurotoxic damage to the dorsomedial striatum exaggerates the behavioral influence of a context-specific inhibitory association mediated by the ventral hippocampus.

2008· article· en· W2014136593 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert J. McDonald, Amy L. King, Nancy S. Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeuroscienceHippocampusContext (archaeology)PsychologyInhibitory postsynaptic potentialStriatumAssociation (psychology)BiologyDopamine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the role of the dorsomedial striatum (DMS) on the acquisition of a context-specific inhibitory association acquired during training on a simple visual discrimination task. The authors have previously shown that this inhibitory association depends on the circuitry of the ventral hippocampus. The authors were interested in the anatomical and functional relationship between the hippocampus and DMS and the potential contribution the DMS makes to this inhibitory behavior. Rats with neurotoxic lesions of the DMS, or shams, were assessed on the acquisition of a visual discrimination task. Following asymptotic performance, they were given reversal training in the same or different context from the original training. The results indicated that the rats with DMS damage showed an exaggerated context-specific inhibition effect. The rats with DMS damage were also impaired on a simultaneously trained tactile/spatial discrimination, a functional effect linked to a neural circuit that includes the dorsal hippocampus. A discussion of potential pathways and mechanisms for these different effects is presented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral NeuroscienceSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207