MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082397237 · doi:10.1002/hipo.10030

Effects of lesions to the hippocampus or the fornix on allocentric conditional associative learning in rats

2002· article· en· W2082397237 on OpenAlexaff
Viviane Sziklas, Michael Petrides

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFornixHippocampal formationHippocampusNeurosciencePsychologySpatial memoryAmnesiaSpatial learningDissociation (chemistry)Associative learningImpaired memoryCognitive psychologyWorking memoryCognitionChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rats with lesions of the fornix, the hippocampus, or normal control animals were trained on a visual-spatial conditional associative learning task in which they had to learn to go to a particular location based on the presence of a specific visual cue; the rats approached the cues from different directions. Animals with damage of the fornix were able to learn the task at a rate comparable to that of the control animals. The performance of the hippocampal rats was significantly impaired as compared with the control group. Both the fornix and the hippocampal animals were significantly impaired on a spatial working memory task, the eight-arm radial maze. These findings suggest that, under certain conditions, a functional dissociation exists between the effects of damage to the fornix or the hippocampus and that the fornix may be only selectively involved in spatial learning and memory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207