Ventral hippocampal CA1 and CA3 differentially mediate learned approach-avoidance conflict processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ventral hippocampus is thought to play a key role in the resolution of approach-avoidance conflict, a scenario that arises when stimuli with opposing valences are present simultaneously. Little is known, however, about the contributions of specific hippocampal sub-regions in this process, a critical issue given the functional and anatomical heterogeneity of this structure. Using a non-spatial cue-based paradigm in rats, we found that transient pharmacological inactivation of ventral CA1 produced an avoidance of a conflict cue imbued with both learned positive and negative outcomes, whereas inactivation of the ventral CA3 resulted in the opposite pattern of behavior, with significant preference for the conflict cue. In contrast, dorsal CA1- and CA3- inactivated rats showed no change in conflict behavior. Our findings provide important insight into the functions and circuitry of the ventral hippocampus by demonstrating that the ventral CA1 and CA3 subserve distinct and opposing roles in approach-avoidance conflict processing. Grant sponsor Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (N.S.E.R.C) of Canada awarded to RI (402642) and ACHL (402651).
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".