Optogenetic stimulation of infralimbic cortex projections to the paraventricular thalamus attenuates context‐induced renewal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contexts associated with prior reinforcement can renew extinguished conditioned responding. The prelimbic (PL) and infralimbic (IL) cortices are thought to mediate the expression and suppression of conditioned responding, respectively. Evidence suggests that PL inputs to the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus (PVT) drive the expression of cue-induced reinstatement of drug seeking and that IL inputs to the PVT mediate fear extinction retrieval. However, the role of these projections in renewal of appetitive Pavlovian conditioned responding is unknown. We trained male and female Long-Evans rats to associate a conditioned stimulus (CS; 10 s white noise) with delivery of a 10% sucrose unconditioned stimulus (US; .2 ml/CS) to a fluid port in a distinct context (Context A). We then extinguished responding by presenting the CS without the US in a different context (Context B). At test, rats were returned to Context A, and optogenetic stimulation was delivered to either the IL-to-PVT or PL-to-PVT pathway during CS presentations. Optically stimulating the IL-to-PVT, but not the PL-to-PVT pathway, attenuated ABA renewal of CS port entries, and this effect was similar in males and females. Further, rats self-administered optical stimulation of the IL-to-PVT but not the PL-to-PVT pathway suggesting that activation of the IL-to-PVT pathway is reinforcing. The effectiveness of optical stimulation parameters to activate neurons in the IL, PL and PVT was confirmed using Fos immunohistochemistry. These findings provide evidence for novel neural mechanisms in renewal of responding to a sucrose-predictive CS, as well as more generally in contextual processing and appetitive associative learning.
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) | 0.002 | 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".