MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468547988 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2016.06.031

Dopamine D1 and D2 Receptors Make Dissociable Contributions to Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortical Regulation of Rule-Guided Oculomotor Behavior

2016· article· en· W2468547988 on OpenAlexafffund
Susheel Vijayraghavan, Alex James Major, Stefan Everling

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeuroscienceStimulus (psychology)Dorsolateral prefrontal cortexStimulationEye movementDopamine receptor D2PsychologyPrefrontal cortexDopamineSaccadic maskingWorking memoryCognitionCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies of neuromodulation of spatial short-term memory have shown that dopamine D1 receptor (D1R) stimulation in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) dose-dependently modulates memory activity, whereas D2 receptors (D2Rs) selectively modulate activity related to eye movements hypothesized to encode movement feedback. We examined localized stimulation of D1Rs and D2Rs on DLPFC neurons engaged in a task involving rule representation in memory to guide appropriate eye movements toward or away from a visual stimulus. We found dissociable effects of D1R and D2R on DLPFC physiology. D1R stimulation degrades memory activity for the task rule and increases stimulus-related selectivity. In contrast, D2R stimulation affects motor activity tuning only when eye movements are made to the stimulus. Only D1R stimulation degrades task performance and increases impulsive responding. Our results suggest that D1Rs regulate rule representation and impulse control, whereas D2Rs selectively modulate eye-movement-related dynamics and not rule representation in the DLPFC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207