Medial prefrontal cortex population activity is plastic irrespective of learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is thought to learn the relationships between actions and their outcomes. But little is known about what changes to population activity in PFC are specific to learning these relationships. Here we characterize the plasticity of population activity in the medial PFC (mPFC) of male rats learning rules on a Y-maze. First, we show that the population always changes its patterns of joint activity between the periods of sleep either side of a training session on the maze, regardless of successful rule learning during training. Next, by comparing the structure of population activity in sleep and training, we show that this population plasticity differs between learning and nonlearning sessions. In learning sessions, the changes in population activity in post-training sleep incorporate the changes to the population activity during training on the maze. In nonlearning sessions, the changes in sleep and training are unrelated. Finally, we show evidence that the nonlearning and learning forms of population plasticity are driven by different neuron-level changes, with the nonlearning form entirely accounted for by independent changes to the excitability of individual neurons, and the learning form also including changes to firing rate couplings between neurons. Collectively, our results suggest two different forms of population plasticity in mPFC during the learning of action–outcome relationships: one a persistent change in population activity structure decoupled from overt rule-learning, and the other a directional change driven by feedback during behavior. <b>SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT</b> The PFC is thought to represent our knowledge about what action is worth doing in which context. But we do not know how the activity of neurons in PFC collectively changes when learning which actions are relevant. Here we show, in a trial-and-error task, that population activity in PFC is persistently changing, regardless of learning. Only during episodes of clear learning of relevant actions are the accompanying changes to population activity carried forward into sleep, suggesting a long-lasting form of neural plasticity. Our results suggest that representations of relevant actions in PFC are acquired by reward imposing a direction onto ongoing population plasticity.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".