Physiology of the Entorhinal and Perirhinal Projections to the Hippocampus Studied by Current Source Density Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evoked field potentials and current-source-density analysis were used to study the olfactory, entorhinal, and perirhinal projections to the hippocampus. In urethane-anesthetized rats, various structures were electrically stimulated, and evoked potentials were mapped using glass micropipettes or multichannel silicon probes. Stimulation of the olfactory bulb, lateral olfactory tract, piriform cortex, amygdala-entorhinal transition, lateral entorhinal cortex, or lateral perforant path (LPP) evoked an outer molecular layer sink (inferred distal dendritic excitation) in the dentate gyrus, with progressively decreasing onset latency. Medial perforant path (MPP) stimulation evoked a middle molecular layer sink (mid-dendritic excitation) in the dentate gyrus. LPP and MPP were also inferred to monosynaptically excite the distal dendrites of CA3, often resulting in a population spike in CA3. CA3 spiking, in turn, was often followed by excitation at the inner molecular layer of the dentate gyrus. LPP and MPP evoked distal dendritic sinks but no population spikes in CA1. Stimulation of the perirhinal cortex activated a sink in the subiculum/CA1 border without activating the dentate gyrus. In addition, reverberatory activity through a hippocampal-entorhinal-hippocampal pathway may be activated by MPP or CA3 stimulation. It is suggested that the parallel projections of the entorhinal and perirhinal inputs to the distal dendrites of hippocampal principal neurons enhance local and distributed processing as characterized by CA3 to dentate gyrus feedback, and hippocampal-entorhinal reverberation.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".