Theta- and gamma-band oscillatory uncoupling in the macaque hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Nested hippocampal oscillations in the rodent give rise to temporal dynamics that may underlie learning, memory, and decision making. Although theta/gamma coupling in rodent CA1 occurs during exploration, in contrast to sharp-wave ripples that emerge in quiescence, it is less clear that these oscillatory regimes extend to primates. We, therefore, sought to identify correspondences in frequency bands, nesting, and behavioral coupling taken from the macaque hippocampus. We found that, in contrast to rodent oscillations, theta and gamma frequency bands in macaque CA1 were segregated by behavioral states. Beta2/gamma (15-70 Hz) had greater power during visual search while the theta band (3-10 Hz; peak ∼8 Hz) dominated during quiescence. Moreover, theta band amplitude was strongest when beta2/slow gamma (20-35 Hz) amplitude was weakest, occurring instead concomitant with higher frequencies (60-150 Hz). Spike-field coherence was most frequently seen in these three bands, (3-10 Hz, 20-35 Hz, and 60-150 Hz); however, the theta-band coherence was largely due to spurious coupling during sharp-wave ripples. Accordingly, no intrinsic theta spiking rhythmicity was apparent. These results support a role for beta2/slow gamma modulation in CA1 during active exploration in the primate that is decoupled from theta oscillations. The apparent difference to the rodent oscillatory canon calls for a shift in focus of frequency when considering the primate hippocampus.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".