Minimal driving of hippocampal theta by the supramammillary nucleus during water maze learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown only modest effects of supramammillary nucleus (SuM) dysfunction on theta frequency and learning in the water maze (WM), with larger effects in other tasks. However, theta recorded from SuM, and used to trigger the production of theta-like oscillations in the hippocampus, produced reversal of the deficit in WM learning produced by theta blocking. We explored this apparent inconsistency by analyzing the relationship between SuM and hippocampal theta in the control group of this theta-blocking experiment using coherence, phase analysis, and the directed transfer function. We found little evidence of an influence of SuM on the hippocampus in the bulk of WM learning-with some possibility of SuM becoming involved briefly later in learning. A learning-related increase in coherence was observed in conjunction with gradual phase reorganization of hippocampal theta in relation to SuM theta. This change in phase dynamics between the two structures was also correlated with a relative increase of the estimated direction of theta propagation from the SuM to the hippocampus. These results are consistent with the previous weak effects of SuM lesions and suggest that the use of SuM as a source to trigger hippocampal theta and recover function is likely to be due to coherence between SuM and some other structure that normally controls hippocampal theta during WM learning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".