MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791893940 · doi:10.1101/lm.046946.117

Mechanisms of critical period in the hippocampus underlie object location learning and memory in infant rats

2018· article· en· W2791893940 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alessio Travaglia, Adam B. Steinmetz, Janelle M. Miranda, Cristina M. Alberini

Bibliographic record

VenueLearning & Memory · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthYork University
KeywordsPsychologyHippocampusNeuroscienceForgettingChildhood amnesiaEpisodic memoryAmnesiaContext (archaeology)Period (music)Long-term memoryHippocampal formationChildhood memoryDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Episodic memories in early childhood are rapidly forgotten, a phenomenon that is associated with "infantile amnesia," the inability of adults to remember early-life experiences. We recently showed that early aversive contextual memory in infant rats, which is in fact rapidly forgotten, is actually not lost, as reminders presented later in life reinstate a long-lasting and context-specific memory. We also showed that the formation of this infantile memory recruits in the hippocampus mechanisms typical of developmental critical periods. Here, we tested whether similar mechanisms apply to a nonaversive, hippocampal type of learning. We report that novel object location (nOL) learned at postnatal day 17 (PN17) undergoes the typical rapid forgetting of infantile learning. However, a later reminder reinstates memory expression. Furthermore, as for aversive experiences, nOL learning at PN17 engages critical period mechanisms in the dorsal hippocampus: it induces a switch in the GluN2A/2B-NMDA receptor ratio, and brain-derived neurotrophic factor injected bilaterally into the dorsal hippocampus immediately after training results in long-lasting memory expression. We conclude that in infancy the hippocampus plays a necessary role in processing episodic and contextual memories, including nonaversive ones, and matures through a developmental critical period.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 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

Citations59
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLearning & MemorySame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207