MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743651283 · doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00180-9

Sparse orthogonal population representation of spatial context in the retrosplenial cortex

2017· article· en· W2743651283 on OpenAlexaff
Dun Mao, Steffen Kandler, Bruce L. McNaughton, Vincent Bonin

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrosplenial cortexChromatin structure remodeling (RSC) complexHippocampal formationNeural codingNeuroscienceHippocampusPopulationContext (archaeology)Spatial memoryComputer sciencePlace cellSpatial contextual awarenessLocal field potentialBiologyArtificial intelligenceWorking memoryCognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

imaging in RSC of mice with a head-fixed locomotion assay, we identified a population of RSC neurons, located predominantly in superficial layers, whose ensemble activity closely resembles that of hippocampal CA1 place cells during the same task. Like CA1 place cells, these RSC neurons fire in sequences during movement, and show narrowly tuned firing fields that form a sparse, orthogonal code correlated with location. RSC 'place' cell activity is robust to environmental manipulations, showing partial remapping similar to that observed in CA1. This population code for spatial context may assist the RSC in its role in memory and/or navigation.Neurons in the retrosplenial cortex (RSC) encode spatial and navigational signals. Here the authors use calcium imaging to show that, similar to the hippocampus, RSC neurons also encode place cell-like activity in a sparse orthogonal representation, partially anchored to the allocentric cues on the linear track.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations259
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207