MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hippocampal Dynamics Predict Interindividual Cognitive Differences in Rats

2012· article· en· W2034550490 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Hok, Ehsan Chah, Richard B. Reilly, Shane M. O’Mara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHippocampal formationCognitionPlace cellNeurosciencePsychologyMnemonicCognitive declineCorrelationHippocampusDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyAudiologyDementiaMedicineInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are important and sustained interindividual differences in cognition during aging. Here, we investigated hippocampal spatial representations in a rat model of cognitive aging characterized by individual differences in a mnemonic task. Individual cognitive capabilities in old rats were assessed in a delayed non-matching-to-position task. We recorded hippocampal CA1 place cells as the rats explored a familiar environment. Unlike the usual place cells commonly described in the literature, we found that a significant fraction of pyramidal neurons recorded in our study showed a substantial delayed onset of their place field activity. We established that this firing onset delay naturally occurs under basal conditions in old rats and is positively correlated with the remapping status of the animals. The lack of firing during the first few hundred seconds after the animals were introduced into a familiar environment was also associated with an increased locomotion in the remapping rats. This delayed activity is central to understanding the individual basis of age-related cognitive impairment and to resolving numerous discrepancies in the literature on the place cell contribution to the etiology of aged-related decline. Finally, we also found a positive correlation between the degree of firing variability of place cells ("overdispersion") and performance during the long delays in the delayed non-matching-to-position task. Place cell overdispersion might provide the functional basis for interindividual differences in behavior and cognition.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations38
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207