Lesions of dorsal striatum eliminate lose‐switch responding but not mixed‐response strategies in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used focal brain lesions in rats to examine how dorsomedial (DMS) and dorsolateral (DLS) regions of the striatum differently contribute to response adaptation driven by the delivery or omission of rewards. Rats performed a binary choice task under two modes: one in which responses were rewarded on half of the trials regardless of choice; and another 'competitive' one in which only unpredictable choices were rewarded. In both modes, control animals were more likely to use a predictable lose-switch strategy than animals with lesions of either DMS or DLS. Animals with lesions of DMS presumably relied more on DLS for behavioural control, and generated repetitive responses in the first mode. These animals then shifted to a random response strategy in the competitive mode, thereby performing better than controls or animals with DLS lesions. Analysis using computational models of reinforcement learning indicated that animals with striatal lesions, particularly of the DLS, had blunted reward sensitivity and less stochasticity in the choice mechanism. These results provide further evidence that the rodent DLS is involved in rapid response adaptation that is more sophisticated than that embodied by the classic notion of habit formation driven by gradual stimulus-response 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".