Advances in Understanding Mechanisms of Thalamic Relays in Cognition and Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main impetus for a mini-symposium on corticothalamic interrelationships was the recent number of studies highlighting the role of the thalamus in aspects of cognition beyond sensory processing. The thalamus contributes to a range of basic cognitive behaviors that include learning and memory, inhibitory control, decision-making, and the control of visual orienting responses. Its functions are deeply intertwined with those of the better studied cortex, although the principles governing its coordination with the cortex remain opaque, particularly in higher-level aspects of cognition. How should the thalamus be viewed in the context of the rest of the brain? Although its role extends well beyond relaying of sensory information from the periphery, the main function of many of its subdivisions does appear to be that of a relay station, transmitting neural signals primarily to the cerebral cortex from a number of brain areas. In cognition, its main contribution may thus be to coordinate signals between diverse regions of the telencephalon, including the neocortex, hippocampus, amygdala, and striatum. This central coordination is further subject to considerable extrinsic control, for example, inhibition from the basal ganglia, zona incerta, and pretectal regions, and chemical modulation from ascending neurotransmitter systems. What follows is a brief review on the role of the thalamus in aspects of cognition and behavior, focusing on a summary of the topics covered in a mini-symposium held at the Society for Neuroscience meeting, 2014.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".