Theta synchronization between medial prefrontal cortex and cerebellum is associated with adaptive performance of associative learning behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Associative learning is thought to require coordinated activities among distributed brain regions. For example, to direct behavior appropriately, the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) must encode and maintain sensory information and then interact with the cerebellum during trace eyeblink conditioning (TEBC), a commonly-used associative learning model. However, the mechanisms by which these two distant areas interact remain elusive. By simultaneously recording local field potential (LFP) signals from the mPFC and the cerebellum in guinea pigs undergoing TEBC, we found that theta-frequency (5.0-12.0 Hz) oscillations in the mPFC and the cerebellum became strongly synchronized following presentation of auditory conditioned stimulus. Intriguingly, the conditioned eyeblink response (CR) with adaptive timing occurred preferentially in the trials where mPFC-cerebellum theta coherence was stronger. Moreover, both the mPFC-cerebellum theta coherence and the adaptive CR performance were impaired after the disruption of endogenous orexins in the cerebellum. Finally, association of the mPFC -cerebellum theta coherence with adaptive CR performance was time-limited occurring in the early stage of associative learning. These findings suggest that the mPFC and the cerebellum may act together to contribute to the adaptive performance of associative learning behavior by means of theta synchronization.
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".