Ventral, but not dorsal, hippocampus inactivation impairs reward memory expression and retrieval in contexts defined by proximal cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The hippocampus (HPC) has been widely implicated in the contextual control of appetitive and aversive conditioning. However, whole hippocampal lesions do not invariably impair all forms of contextual processing, as in the case of complex biconditional context discrimination, leading to contention over the exact nature of the contribution of the HPC in contextual processing. Moreover, the increasingly well‐established functional dissociation between the dorsal (dHPC) and ventral (vHPC) subregions of the HPC has been largely overlooked in the existing literature on hippocampal‐based contextual memory processing in appetitively motivated tasks. Thus, the present study sought to investigate the individual roles of the dHPC and the vHPC in contextual biconditional discrimination (CBD) performance and memory retrieval. To this end, we examined the effects of transient post‐acquisition pharmacological inactivation (using a combination of GABA A and GABA B receptor agonists muscimol and baclofen) of functionally distinct subregions of the HPC (CA1/CA3 subfields of the dHPC and vHPC) on CBD memory retrieval. Additional behavioral assays including novelty preference, light‐dark box and locomotor activity test were also performed to confirm that the respective sites of inactivation were functionally silent. We observed robust deficits in CBD performance and memory retrieval following inactivation of the vHPC, but not the dHPC. Our data provides novel insight into the differential roles of the ventral and dorsal HPC in reward contextual processing, under conditions in which the context is defined by proximal cues.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".