Amplitude, frequency, and phase analysis of hippocampal theta during sensorimotor processing in a jump avoidance task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current study, rats implanted with hippocampal recording electrodes were trained to avoid shock in a jump avoidance task, using three separate heights, 28, 33, and 38 cm. The objectives were to measure the progression of Type 2 (immobility-related) hippocampal theta amplitude and frequency recorded during jump avoidances at each of the levels, and determine if there was a consistent relationship between the phase of the Type 1 (movement related) theta jump wave and the moment of movement initiation at each of the jump heights. The results demonstrated that the immobility period prior to the execution of the jump could be divided into two components: a sensory processing period and a movement preparation period. Comparing these two periods, average amplitudes were higher while frequency remained relatively constant during the sensory processing period. During the movement preparation period there was a negative correlation between amplitude and frequency: amplitude declined rapidly and frequency increased rapidly. During the execution of the jump, theta amplitude (Type 1) and frequency were positively correlated, both reaching peak values. The separate analyses of the individual jump heights provided further support for the precise relationships between theta parameters and the magnitude of the required movements. A significant phase preference was demonstrated for the highest jump height, with movement initiation occurring around the trough of theta recorded from the stratum moleculare of the dentate region. The findings supported the conclusion that the generation of hippocampal theta band oscillation and synchrony was related to sensorimotor processing and integration.
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".