MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018184523 · doi:10.1002/hipo.22031

Cognitive demands induce selective hippocampal reorganization: <i>Arc</i> expression in a place and response task

2012· article· en· W2018184523 on OpenAlexaff
Brandy Schmidt, Elham Satvat, Melissa Argraves, Etan J. Markus, Diano F. Marrone

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceHippocampal formationHippocampusDorsumDentate gyrusPsychologyEntorhinal cortexArc (geometry)CognitionBiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Place cells in the hippocampus can maintain multiple representations of a single environment and respond to physical and/or trajectory changes by remapping. Within the hippocampus there are anatomical, electrophysiological, and behavioral dissociations between the dorsal and ventral hippocampus and within dorsal CA1. Arc expression was used to measure the recruitment of ensembles across different hippocampal subregions in rats trained to utilize two different cognitive strategies while traversing an identical trajectory. This behavioral paradigm allowed for the measurement of remapping in the absence of changes in external cues, trajectory traversed (future/past), running speed, motivation, or different stages of learning. Changes in task demands induced remapping in only some hippocampal regions: reorganization of cell ensembles was observed in dorsal CA1 but not in dorsal CA3. Moreover, a gradient was found in the degree of remapping within dorsal CA1 that corresponds to entorhinal connectivity to this region. Remapping was not seen in the ventral hippocampus: neither ventral CA1 nor CA3 exhibited ensemble changes with different cognitive demands. This contrasts with findings of remapping in both the dorsal and ventral dentate gyrus using this task. The results suggest that the dorsal pole of the hippocampus is more sensitive to changes in task demands.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207