MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307188347 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2212152119

Neuronal signature of spatial decision-making during navigation by freely moving rats by using calcium imaging

2022· article· en· W4307188347 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Gobbo, Rufus Mitchell‐Heggs, Dorothy Tse, Meera Al Omrani, Patrick A. Spooner, Simon R. Schultz, Richard Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Centre
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilImperial College LondonWellcome Trust
KeywordsCalcium imagingPopulationTask (project management)Context (archaeology)Coding (social sciences)NeuroscienceRecallHippocampusSpatial memorySpatial contextual awarenessComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyGeographyMedicineCalciumCognitive psychologyCognitionWorking memoryMathematicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A challenge in spatial memory is understanding how place cell firing contributes to decision-making in navigation. A spatial recency task was created in which freely moving rats first became familiar with a spatial context over several days and thereafter were required to encode and then selectively recall one of three specific locations within it that was chosen to be rewarded that day. Calcium imaging was used to record from more than 1,000 cells in area CA1 of the hippocampus of five rats during the exploration, sample, and choice phases of the daily task. The key finding was that neural activity in the startbox rose steadily in the short period prior to entry to the arena and that this selective population cell firing was predictive of the daily changing goal on correct trials but not on trials in which the animals made errors. Single-cell and population activity measures converged on the idea that prospective coding of neural activity can be involved in navigational decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207