Spatial Information Encoding across Multiple Neocortical Regions Depends on an Intact Hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been considerable research showing populations of neurons encoding for different aspects of space in the brain. Recently, several studies using two-photon calcium imaging and virtual navigation have identified “spatially” modulated neurons in the posterior cortex. We enquire here whether the presence of such spatial representations may be a cortex-wide phenomenon and, if so, whether these representations can be organized in the absence of the hippocampus. To this end, we imaged the dorsal cortex of mice running on a treadmill populated with tactile cues. A high percentage (40–80%) of the detected neurons exhibited sparse, spatially localized activity, with activity fields uniformly localized over the track. The development of this location specificity was impaired by hippocampal damage. Thus, there is a substantial population of neurons distributed widely over the cortex that collectively form a continuous representation of the explored environment, and hippocampal outflow is necessary to organize this phenomenon. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Increasing evidence points to the role of the neocortex in encoding spatial information. Whether this feature is linked to hippocampal functions is largely unknown. Here, we systematically surveyed multiple regions in the dorsal cortex of the same animal for the presence of signals encoding for spatial position. We described populations of cortical neurons expressing sequential patterns of activity localized in space in primary, secondary, and associational areas. Furthermore, we showed that the formation of these spatial representations was impacted by hippocampal lesion. Our results indicate that hippocampal inputs are necessary to maintain a precise cortical representation of space.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".