Activation Patterns in Superficial Layers of Neocortex Change Between Experiences Independent of Behavior, Environment, or the Hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work suggests that activation patterns of neurons in superficial layers of the neocortex are more sensitive to spatial context than activation patterns in deep cortical layers. A possible source of this laminar difference is the distribution of contextual information to the superficial cortical layers carried by hippocampal efferents that travel through the entorhinal cortex and subiculum. To evaluate the role that the hippocampus plays in determining context sensitivity in superficial cortical layers, behavior-induced expression of the immediate early gene Arc was examined in hippocampus-lesioned and control rats after exposing them to 2 distinct contexts. Contrary to expectations, hippocampal lesions had no observable effect on Arc expression in any neocortical layer relative to controls. Furthermore, another group of intact animals was exposed to the same environment twice, to determine the reliability of Arc-expression patterns across identical contextual and behavioral episodes. Although this condition included no difference in external input between 2 epochs, the significant layer differences in Arc expression still remained. Thus, laminar differences in activation or plasticity patterns are not likely to arise from hippocampal sources or differences in external inputs, but are more likely to be an intrinsic property of the neocortex.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".