Dissociable contributions of the ventral hippocampus and orbitofrontal cortex to decision‐making with a delayed or uncertain outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examined how risk and delay influence rats' decision-making, and the role of the ventral hippocampus (VHC) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) in the valuation of these two factors. We used a touchscreen testing method in which rats with VHC lesions, OFC lesions and sham control surgery made choices in two decision-making tasks. In the delay discounting task, rats chose between two visual stimuli, one of which indicated a small, immediate reward, and the other of which indicated a large, delayed reward. In the probability discounting task, two stimuli indicated, instead, a small, certain reward or a large, uncertain reward. The two lesion groups showed a double dissociation with respect to the two tasks. Rats with VHC lesions were intolerant of delay, and were strongly biased towards the small, immediate reward. However, the same rats were indistinguishable from sham controls in the probability discounting task. The opposite pattern was observed for rats with OFC lesions; they performed normally in the delay discounting task, but showed a reduced tolerance for uncertainty as compared with sham-operated controls. These data support the conclusion that the VHC and OFC contribute differentially to decision-making that involves delayed or uncertain outcomes. This provides a means for understanding the neural basis of a range of neurological and psychiatric patients who show impaired decision-making and executive dysfunction.
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) | 0.001 | 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".