MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026412621 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1421963112

Place field expansion after focal MEC inactivations is consistent with loss of Fourier components and path integrator gain reduction

2015· article· en· W2026412621 on OpenAlexafffund
Jake Ormond, Bruce L. McNaughton

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsHippocampal formationEntorhinal cortexContraction (grammar)NeuroscienceTheta rhythmFourier transformIntegratorDorsumPhysicsHippocampusFourier analysisNuclear magnetic resonanceMathematicsAnatomyBiologyMathematical analysisVoltageEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both hippocampal place fields and medial entorhinal cortex (MEC) grid fields increase in scale along the dorsoventral axis. Because the connections from MEC to hippocampus are topographically organized and divergent, it has been hypothesized that place fields are generated by a Fourier-like summation of inputs over a range of spatial scales. This hypothesis predicts that inactivation of dorsal MEC should cause place field expansion, whereas inactivation of ventral MEC should cause field contraction. Inactivation of dorsal MEC caused substantial expansion of place fields; however, as inactivations were made more ventrally, the effect diminished but never switched to contraction. Expansion was accompanied by proportional decreases in theta power, intrinsic oscillation frequencies, phase precession slopes, and firing rates. Our results are most consistent with the predicted loss of specific Fourier components coupled with a path integration gain reduction, which raises the overall place field scale and masks the contraction expected from ventral inactivations.

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 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations58
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207