MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122770303 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2013.00074

Abrupt changes in the patterns and complexity of anterior cingulate cortex activity when food is introduced into an environment

2013· article· en· W2122770303 on OpenAlexafffund
Barak F. Caracheo, Eldon Emberly, Shirin Hadizadeh, James M. Hyman, Jeremy K. Seamans

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersTula Foundation
KeywordsAnterior cingulate cortexNeurosciencePsychologyFront (military)CognitionGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foraging typically involves two distinct phases, an exploration phase where an organism explores its local environment in search of needed resources and an exploitation phase where a discovered resource is consumed. The behavior and cognitive requirements of exploration and exploitation are quite different and yet organisms can quickly and efficiently switch between them many times during a foraging bout. The present study investigated neural activity state dynamics in the anterior cingulate sub-region of the rat medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) when a reliable food source was introduced into an environment. Distinct and largely independent states were detected using a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) when food was present or absent in the environment. Measures of neural entropy or complexity decreased when rats went from exploring the environment to exploiting a reliable food source. Exploration in the absence of food was associated with many weak activity states, while bouts of food consumption were characterized by fewer stronger states. Widespread activity state changes in the mPFC may help to inform foraging decisions and focus behavior on what is currently most prominent or valuable in the environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207