MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899306076 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy248

Dissociation of Appetitive Overexpectation and Extinction in the Infralimbic Cortex

2018· article· en· W2899306076 on OpenAlexafffund
Belinda P. P. Lay, Melissa Nicolosi, Alexandra A Usypchuk, Guillem R. Esber, Mihaela D Iordanova

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsInfralimbic cortexNeuroscienceExtinction (optical mineralogy)Dissociation (chemistry)PsychologyPrefrontal cortexChemistryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioral change is paramount to adaptive behavior. Two ways to achieve alterations in previously established behavior are extinction and overexpectation. The infralimbic (IL) portion of the medial prefrontal cortex controls the inhibition of previously established aversive behavioral responses in extinction. The role of the IL cortex in behavioral modification in appetitive Pavlovian associations remains poorly understood. Here, we seek to determine if the IL cortex modulates overexpectation and extinction of reward learning. Using overexpectation or extinction to achieve a reduction in behavior, the present findings uncover a dissociable role for the IL cortex in these paradigms. Pharmacologically inactivating the IL cortex left overexpectation intact. In contrast, pre-training manipulations in the IL cortex prior to extinction facilitated the reduction in conditioned responding but led to a disrupted extinction retrieval on test drug-free. Additional studies confirmed that this effect is restricted to the IL and not dependent on the dorsally-located prelimbic cortex. Together, these results show that the IL cortex underlies extinction but not overexpectation-driven reduction in behavior, which may be due to regulating the expression of conditioned responses influenced by stimulus-response associations rather than stimulus-stimulus associations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207