Differential dopamine receptor-dependent sensitivity improves action selection in the basal ganglia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of selecting one action from a set of different possible actions, simply referred to as the problem of action selection, is a ubiquitous challenge in the animal world. For vertebrates, the basal ganglia (BG) are widely thought to implement the core computation to solve this problem, as the anatomy and physiology of the BG are well-suited to this end. However, the BG still displays physiological features whose role in achieving efficient action selection remains unclear. In particular, it is known that the two types of dopaminergic receptors (D1 and D2) present in the BG give rise to mechanistically different responses. The overall effect will be a difference in sensitivity to dopamine which may have ramifications for action selection. However, which receptor type leads to a stronger response is, a priori, unclear, due to the complexity of the intracellular mechanisms involved. In this study, we use the action selection hypothesis to {\em predict} which of D1 or D2 has the greater sensitivity. Thus, we ask - what sensitivity ratio would result in enhanced action selection functionality in the basal ganglia? To do this, we incorporated differential D1 and D2 sensitivity in an existing, high level computational model of the macro-architecture of the basal ganglia, via a simple weighting variable. We then quantitatively assessed the model's capacity to perform action selection as we parametrically manipulated the new feature. We show that differential (rather than equal) D1 and D2 sensitivity to dopaminergic input improves action selection, and specifically, that greater D1 sensitivity (compared to that for D2) leads to these improvements.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".