Impaired Visual Search in Rats Reveals Cholinergic Contributions to Feature Binding in Visuospatial Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The visual search task established the feature integration theory of attention in humans and measures visuospatial attentional contributions to feature binding. We recently demonstrated that the neuromodulator acetylcholine (ACh), from the nucleus basalis magnocellularis (NBM), supports the attentional processes required for feature binding using a rat digging-based task. Additional research has demonstrated cholinergic contributions from the NBM to visuospatial attention in rats. Here, we combined these lines of evidence and employed visual search in rats to examine whether cortical cholinergic input supports visuospatial attention specifically for feature binding. We trained 18 male Long-Evans rats to perform visual search using touch screen-equipped operant chambers. Sessions comprised Feature Search (no feature binding required) and Conjunctive Search (feature binding required) trials using multiple stimulus set sizes. Following acquisition of visual search, 8 rats received bilateral NBM lesions using 192 IgG-saporin to selectively reduce cholinergic afferentation of the neocortex, which we hypothesized would selectively disrupt the visuospatial attentional processes needed for efficient conjunctive visual search. As expected, relative to sham-lesioned rats, ACh-NBM-lesioned rats took significantly longer to locate the target stimulus on Conjunctive Search, but not Feature Search trials, thus demonstrating that cholinergic contributions to visuospatial attention are important for feature binding in rats.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".