Temporal Dynamics of Hippocampal and Medial Prefrontal Cortex Interactions During the Delay Period of a Working Memory-Guided Foraging Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Connections between the hippocampus (HC) and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) are critical for working memory; however, the precise contribution of this pathway is a matter of debate. One suggestion is that it may stabilize retrospective memories of recently encountered task-relevant information. Alternatively, it may be involved in encoding prospective memories, or the internal representation of future goals. To explore these possibilities, simultaneous extracellular recordings were made from mPFC and HC of rats performing the delayed spatial win-shift on a radial maze. Each trial consisted of a training-phase (when 4 randomly chosen arms were open) and test phase (all 8 arms were open but only previously blocked arms contained food) separated by a 60-s delay. Theta power was highest during the delay, and mPFC units were more likely to become entrained to hippocampal theta as the delay progressed. Training and test phase performance were accurately predicted by a linear classifier, and there was a transition in classification for training-phase to test-phase activity patterns throughout the delay on trials where the rats performed well. These data suggest that the HC and mPFC become more strongly synchronized as mPFC circuits preferentially shift from encoding retrospective to prospective information.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".