MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prelimbic and Infralimbic Prefrontal Regulation of Active and Inhibitory Avoidance and Reward-Seeking

2020· article· en· W3024693316 on OpenAlex
Giulia Capuzzo, Stan Floresco

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyCued speechNeurosciencePrefrontal cortexAvoidance learningAversive StimulusInfralimbic cortexAvoidance responseExtinction (optical mineralogy)Inhibitory postsynaptic potentialAnticipation (artificial intelligence)AmygdalaTask (project management)CognitionCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flexible initiation or suppression of actions to avoid aversive events is crucial for survival. The prelimbic (PL) and infralimbic (IL) regions of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) have been implicated in different aspects of avoidance and reward-seeking, but their respective contribution in instigating versus suppressing actions in aversive contexts remains to be clarified. We examined mPFC involvement in different forms of avoidance in rats well trained on different cued lever-press avoidance tasks. Active/inhibitory avoidance required flexible discrimination between auditory cues signaling foot-shock could be avoided by making or withholding instrumental responses. On a simpler active avoidance task, a single cue signaled when a lever press would avoid shock. PL inactivation disrupted active but not inhibitory avoidance on the discriminative task while having no effect on single-cued avoidance. In comparison, IL inactivation broadly impaired active and inhibitory avoidance. Conversely, on a cued appetitive go/no-go task, both IL and PL inactivation impaired inhibitory but not active reward-seeking, the latter effect being diametrically opposite to that observed on the avoidance task. These findings highlight the complex manner in which different mPFC regions aid in initiating or inhibiting actions in the service of avoiding aversive outcomes or obtaining rewarding ones. IL facilitates active avoidance but suppress inappropriate actions in appetitive and aversive contexts. In contrast, contextual valence plays a critical role in how the PL is recruited in initiating or suppressing actions, which may relate to the degree of cognitive control required to flexibly negotiate response or motivational conflicts and override prepotent behaviors. <b>SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT</b> Choosing to make or withhold actions in a context-appropriate manner to avoid aversive events or obtain other goals is a critical survival skill. Different medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) regions have been implicated in certain aspects of avoidance, but their contributions to instigating or suppressing actions remains to be clarified. Here, we show that the dorsal, prelimbic (PL) region of the medial PFC aids active avoidance in situations requiring flexible mitigation of response conflicts, but also aids in withholding responses to obtain rewards. In comparison the ventral infralimbic (IL) cortex plays a broader role in active and inhibitory avoidance as well as suppressing actions to obtain rewards. These findings provide insight into mechanisms underlying normal and maladaptive avoidance behaviors and response inhibition.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.210 · 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