Extrafield Activity Shifts the Place Field Center of Mass to Encode Aversive Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hippocampal place cells are known to have a key role in encoding spatial information. Aversive stimuli, such as predator odor, evoke place field remapping and a change in preferred firing locations. However, it remains unclear how place cells use positive or negative experiences to remap. We investigated whether CA1 place cells, recorded from behaving rats, remap randomly or whether their reconfiguration depends on the perceived location of the aversive stimulus. Exposure to trimethylthiazoline (TMT; an innately aversive odor), increased the amplitude of hippocampal β oscillations in the two arms of the maze in which TMT exposure occurred. We found that a population of place cells with fields located outside the TMT arms increased their activity (extrafield spiking) in the TMT arms during the aversive episodes. Moreover, in the subsequent post-TMT recording, these cells exhibited a significant shift in their center of mass (COM) towards the TMT arms. The induction of extrafield plasticity was mediated by the basolateral amygdala complex (BLA). Photostimulation of the BLA triggered aversive behavior, synchronized hippocampal local field oscillations, and increased the extrafield spiking of the hippocampal place cells for the first 100 ms after light delivery. Optogenetic BLA activation triggered an increase in extrafield spiking activity that was correlated with the degree of place field plasticity. Furthermore, BLA-mediated increase of the extrafield activity predicts the degree of subsequent field plasticity. Our findings demonstrate that that the remapping of hippocampal place cells during aversive episodes is not random but it depends on the location of the aversive stimulus.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".