MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2221261812 · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00331

The Effects of Electrical and Optical Stimulation of Midbrain Dopaminergic Neurons on Rat 50-kHz Ultrasonic Vocalizations

2015· article· en· W2221261812 on OpenAlexafffund
Tina Scardochio, Ivan Trujillo‐Pisanty, Kent Conover, Peter Shizgal, Paul B. S. Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaConcordia UniversityPrinceton University
KeywordsMidbrainDopaminergicStimulationNeuroscienceUltrasonic sensorChemistryDopaminePsychologyPhysicsAcousticsCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Adult rats emit ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs) at around 50-kHz; these commonly occur in contexts that putatively engender positive affect. While several reports indicate that dopaminergic (DAergic) transmission plays a role in the emission of 50-kHz calls, the pharmacological evidence is mixed. Different modes of dopamine (DA) release (i.e., tonic and phasic) could potentially explain this discrepancy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential role of phasic DA release in 50-kHz call emission. METHODS: In Experiment 1, USVs were recorded in adult male rats following unexpected electrical stimulation of the medial forebrain bundle (MFB). In parallel, phasic DA release in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) was recorded using fast-scan cyclic voltammetry. In Experiment 2, USVs were recorded following response-contingent or non-contingent optogenetic stimulation of midbrain DAergic neurons. Four 20-s schedules of optogenetic stimulation were used: fixed-interval, fixed-time, variable-interval, and variable-time. RESULTS: Brief electrical stimulation of the MFB increased both 50-kHz call rate and phasic DA release in the NAcc. During optogenetic stimulation sessions, rats initially called at a high rate comparable to that observed following reinforcers such as psychostimulants. Although optogenetic stimulation maintained reinforced responding throughout the 2-h session, the call rate declined to near zero within the first 30 min. The trill call subtype predominated following both electrical and optical stimulation. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of electrically-evoked 50-kHz calls, time-locked to phasic DA (Experiment 1), provides correlational evidence supporting a role for phasic DA in USV production. However, in Experiment 2, the temporal dissociation between calling and optogenetic stimulation of midbrain DAergic neurons suggests that phasic mesolimbic DA release is not sufficient to produce 50-kHz calls. The emission of the trill subtype of 50-kHz calls potentially provides a marker distinguishing positive affect from positive reinforcement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations50
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Behavioral NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFrench-language works237,207