MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037720659 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1200705109

Critical period for acoustic preference in mice

2012· article· en· W2037720659 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eun Jin Yang, Eric W. Lin, Takao K. Hensch

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPrefrontal cortexNeuroscienceNeuroplasticityConditioned place preferenceInfralimbic cortexPeriod (music)AnxiolyticBiologyPsychologyInternal medicineMedicineReceptorCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preference behaviors are often established during early life, but the underlying neural circuit mechanisms remain unknown. Adapting a unique nesting behavior assay, we confirmed a "critical period" for developing music preference in C57BL/6 mice. Early music exposure between postnatal days 15 and 24 reversed their innate bias for silent shelter, which typically could not be altered in adulthood. Instead, exposing adult mice treated acutely with valproic acid or carrying a targeted deletion of the Nogo receptor (NgR(-/-)) unmasked a strong plasticity of preference consistent with a reopening of the critical period as seen in other systems. Imaging of cFos expression revealed a prominent neuronal activation in response to the exposed music in the prelimbic and infralimbic medial prefrontal cortex only under conditions of open plasticity. Neither behavioral changes nor selective medial prefrontal cortex activation was observed in response to pure tone exposure, indicating a music-specific effect. Open-field center crossings were increased concomitant with shifts in music preference, suggesting a potential anxiolytic effect. Thus, music may offer both a unique window into the emotional state of mice and a potentially efficient assay for molecular "brakes" on critical period plasticity common to sensory and higher order brain areas.

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)0.006
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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations103
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207