Differential Dopamine Receptor-Dependent Sensitivity Improves the Switch Between Hard and Soft Selection in a Model of the Basal Ganglia
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.
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 its anatomy and physiology are well suited to this end. However, the BG still display 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 unclear due to the complexity of the intracellular mechanisms involved. In this study, we use an existing, high-level computational model of the BG, which assumes that dopamine contributes to action selection by enabling a switch between different selection regimes, to predict which of D1 or D2 has the greater sensitivity. Thus, we ask, Assuming dopamine enables a switch between action selection regimes in the BG, what functional sensitivity values would result in improved action selection computation? To do this, we quantitatively assessed the model's capacity to perform action selection as we parametrically manipulated the sensitivity weights of D1 and D2. We show that differential (rather than equal) D1 and D2 sensitivity to dopaminergic input improves the switch between selection regimes during the action selection computation in our model. Specifically, greater D2 sensitivity compared to D1 led 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it