Cooperation and competition between the dorsal hippocampus and lateral amygdala in spatial discrimination learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conditioned cue preference (CCP) was used to study how rats discriminate between adjacent arms on a radial maze. Chai and White (Behav Neurosci 2004, 118:770-784) showed that an intact dorsal hippocampus is required to learn this discrimination and that an amygdala-based conditioned approach response that produces an equal tendency to enter both arms is simultaneously acquired. In the present experiments, rats were preexposed to the maze with no food and trained by alternately confining them at the ends of two adjacent arms, one that contained food and one that did not. When given a choice between these arms with no food present, the rats spent more time on their food-paired arms, suggesting they had learned to discriminate their locations. Temporary inactivation of the dorsal hippocampus with muscimol during confinement on the food-paired arm had no effect on the discrimination, but inactivation while on the no-food arm impaired it. This pattern of effects was reversed in rats with amygdala lesions (inactivation on the food-paired arm impaired, but inactivation on the no-food arm had no effect on the discrimination), showing that hippocampus-based and amygdala-based learning interact to influence the behavior of normal rats in this situation. The dorsal hippocampus learns about locations that contain food and about locations that do not contain food. The amygdala-based tendency to enter the food-paired arm cooperates with hippocampus-based foraging for food on the food-paired, but the amygdala-based tendency to enter the no-food arm competes with hippocampus-based learning about the absence of food on that arm.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".