MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030408499 · doi:10.1037/h0087371

Measuring threshold shifts for brain stimulation reward using the method of limits.

2001· article· en· W2030408499 on OpenAlexaff
Anne T. M. Konkle, Catherine Bielajew, George Fouriezos, Annette Thrasher

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain stimulation rewardPsychologyStimulus (psychology)Brain stimulationStimulationAudiologyNeuroscienceElectrical brain stimulationCognitive psychologyCentral nervous systemMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thresholds determined from the frequency of pulses and the current for rewarding brain stimulation were obtained from rats with lateral hypothalamic electrodes. The threshold, defined as the frequency or current corresponding to one-half the maximum response rate, was interpolated from reward summation functions. Daily trials of both ascending and descending sequences of frequency and current yielded no significant difference between order of presentation. While there was more variability in the maximum response rates across the sessions, neither frequency- nor current-based threshold evaluations yielded significant rate effects. Our findings suggest that the threshold procedure is generally not influenced by the sequence of delivery of stimulus values and, thus, may be regarded as a reliable measure of the reinforcing properties of brain-stimulation reward.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorFrench-language works237,207