Amygdala lesions impair context aversions but not the ability of contexts to serve as occasion setters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rats with large amygdala lesions (Experiment 1) were compared with sham controls on a conditional discrimination task that allowed assessment of occasion-setting learning. A saccharin solution was paired with lithium chloride in one context, but with saline in a second context. All the groups learned to suppress fluid consumption in the first, relative to the second, context. Sham lesioned rats, but not amygdala-lesioned rats, also showed a large aversion to the first context on a choice test. Shamlesioned Pavlovian control groups, given direct pairings of Context 1 with lithium chloride and of Context 2 with saline, showed large aversions to Context 1, whereas similarly trained amygdala-lesioned rats did not avoid the context associated with lithium chloride. Rats with discrete lesions of either the central nucleus or the basolateral nucleus (Experiment 2) of the amygdala were not impaired on the conditional discrimination task but did show deficits on the place choice test. The data from amygdala-lesioned rats in the present study support previous behavioral data in suggesting that the aversive properties of contextual cues, as acquired through Pavlovian conditioning, are neither necessary nor sufficient for occasion-setting learning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".