MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128753970 · doi:10.1080/00207450500535834

BRIEF EXPOSURES TO THETA-BURST MAGNETIC FIELDS IMPAIR THE CONSOLIDATION OF FOOD-INDUCED CONDITIONED PLACE PREFERENCE

2007· article· en· W2128753970 on OpenAlexaff
J. J. DELPARTE, Michael A. Persinger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConsolidation (business)Conditioned place preferencePreferenceNeuroscienceAudiologyMedicineMathematicsStatisticsDopamineBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theta-burst magnetic fields (1 microT) designed to mimic electrical stimuli employed in vitro to affect long-term potentiation have been previously shown to impair the acquisition of conditioned fear. In the current study, the authors were interested in investigating whether similar magnetic fields could affect the consolidation of food-induced conditioned place preference. Fourteen male Wistar rats were exposed to a theta-burst magnetic field (1 s pulse of 5 trains of an LTP-evoking pattern) continuously or with either a 5 s or 10 s interstimulus interval for 15 min immediately following 6 daily conditioning trials (15 min/day) in a place preference apparatus. Testing demonstrated the durations in the food-paired chamber was significantly shorter for all of the magnetic field-exposed groups compared to the sham-exposed group (they remained for longer periods in the food-paired chamber, typical of normal rats). In addition, the group exposed continuously to the LTP-magnetic field (1-ms interstimulus duration) displayed the least time in the food-paired chamber. The treatments explained 80% of the variance in durations within the experimental setting. These results suggest that exposures to theta-burst magnetic fields elicit amnesic effects for contextual stimuli.

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)0.001
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 score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207