The Acquisition and Expression of Remote Spatial Memories Formed During the Juvenile Period are Impaired by AMPAr Blockade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current work investigated the effect of AMPAr blockade on the emergence and expression of spatial function and the neural activity patterns in the hippocampus and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) during remote memory retrieval.Systemic administration of the AMPAr antagonist, NBQX, (0, 5 or 10 mg/kg) prior to training impaired the ability to learn the location of a hidden platform.Administration of NBQX immediately posttraining had no effect on the day-to-day performance.When given a probe test 3 weeks later, the saline group across all conditions spent more time in the target quadrant.The pretraining and pretesting 5 mg/kg NBQX group showed a preference for the target quadrant whereas the posttraining and pretraining/pretesting 5 mg/kg NBQX groups did not.Pretraining, posttraining, and pretaining/pretesting, but not pretesting, groups injected with 10 mg/kg of NBQX did not show a preference for the target quadrant.c-Fos labeling in the hippocampus reflected these differences in probe performance while ACC c-Fos labeling reflected acquisition data.Results indicate that AMPAr activation is necessary for the acquisition and expression of remote spatial memories and that hippocampus activation is required for the expression of those memories.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".