Task phase‐specific involvement of the rat posterior parietal cortex in performance of the <scp>TUNL</scp> task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The posterior parietal cortex (PPC) participates in cognitive processes including working memory (WM), sensory evidence accumulation, and perceptually guided decision making. However, surprisingly little work has used temporally precise manipulations to dissect its role in different epochs of behavior taking place over short timespans, such as WM tasks. As a result, a consistent view of the temporally precise role of the PPC in these processes has not been described. In the present study, we investigated the temporally specific role of the PPC in the Trial-Unique, Nonmatching-to-Location (TUNL) task, a touchscreen-based, visuospatial WM task that relies on the PPC. To disrupt PPC activity in a temporally precise manner, we applied mild intracranial electrical stimulation (ICES). We found that intra-PPC ICES (100 μA) significantly impaired accuracy in TUNL without significantly altering response latency. Moreover, we found that the impairment was specific to ICES applied during the delay and test phases of TUNL. Consistent with previous reports showing delay- and choice-specific neuronal activity in the PPC, the results provide evidence that the rat PPC is required for maintaining memory representations of stimuli over a delay period as well as for making successful comparisons and choices between test stimuli. In contrast, the PPC appears not to be critical for initial encoding of sample stimuli. This pattern of results may indicate that early encoding of visual stimuli is independent of the PPC or that the PPC becomes engaged only when visual stimuli are spatially complex or involve memory or decision making.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".