Inactivation of the prelimbic, but not infralimbic, prefrontal cortex impairs the contextual control of response conflict in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One fundamental function of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) is to guide context-appropriate behaviour in situations of response conflict. Haddon and Killcross recently developed a task in rats which mimics some aspects of response conflict seen in human cognitive paradigms such as the Stroop task. Using this paradigm they demonstrated that large PFC lesions including the prelimbic (PL), infralimbic (IL) and anterior cingulate cortices (ACC) selectively impaired performance on incongruent trials which required the use of task-setting contextual cues to control responding in the face of ambiguous response information. The current experiment was conducted to determine whether specific PFC regions were responsible for the deficit in incongruent performance. Rats were trained on two instrumental biconditional discriminations, one auditory and one visual, in two different contexts. Following acquisition, rats were implanted with guide cannulae aimed at the PL or the IL cortices of the rat prefrontal cortex. Following retraining, rats received microinfusions of the GABA(A) agonist muscimol or artificial cerebrospinal fluid (aCSF) into either the PL or the IL prior to presentations of novel congruent and incongruent audiovisual compounds of the training stimuli in extinction. Results showed that temporary inactivation of the PL cortex led to a selective deficit on incongruent compound trials, but left congruent, and hence biconditional task performance intact. By contrast, IL inactivation had no effect on the accuracy of responding during either congruent or incongruent trials. These results suggest that the PL cortex is necessary for the use of task-setting contextual cues to control responding to conflicting information.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".