Hippocampal neurogenesis promotes effortful responding but does not regulate effort‐based choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental trait of depression is low motivation. Hippocampal neurogenesis has been associated with motivational deficits but detailed evidence on how it regulates human-relevant behavioral traits is still missing. We used the hGFAP-TK rat model to deplete actively dividing neural stem cells in the rat hippocampus. Use of the effort-discounting operant task allowed us to identify specific and detailed deficits in motivation behavior. In this task, rats are given a choice between small and large food rewards, where 2-20 lever presses are required to obtain the large reward (four sugar pellets) versus one press to receive the smaller reward (two sugar pellets). We found that depleting adult neurogenesis did not affect effort-based choice or general motivation to complete the task. However, lack of adult neurogenesis reduced the pressing rate and thus increased time to complete the required presses to obtain a reward. In summary, the present study finds that adult hippocampal neurogenesis specifically reduces response vigor to obtain rewards and thus deepens our understanding in how neurogenesis shapes depression.
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".