Involvement of the Trigeminal Motor System in Brain Stem Self-Stimulation and Stimulation-Induced Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anatomical and behavioral correlates of intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS) at sites in the pons suggest the involvement of the trigeminal motor system in brain stimulation reward. 90% of the electrodes terminating in or dorsal to the trigeminal motor nucleus supported ICSS. Stimulation through these ICSS electrodes was usually accompanied by a display of repetitive jaw movement in the period following brain stimulation. There appeared to be a close relation between post-stimulation jaw movement and ICSS. In the motor nucleus there was a positive linear relationship between current intensity and duration of jaw movement. Optimal current intensities for ICSS induced long periods of jaw movement. Extensive lesions of the dorsal pons which included the locus ceruleus had no effect on ICSS in the trigeminal motor system. Therefore it seems unlikely that ICSS in the trigeminal system is mediated by noradrenergic neurons located in the dorsal pontine area. These data suggest that a centripetal analysis of ICSS sites along pathways afferent to the trigeminal motor system may lead to a more complete description of the anatomical correlates of brain stimulation reward. The functional implications of a trigeminal reinforcement mechanism are discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".