MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317939744 · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-35825-5

Optogenetic frequency scrambling of hippocampal theta oscillations dissociates working memory retrieval from hippocampal spatiotemporal codes

2023· article· en· W4317939744 on OpenAlexafffund
Guillaume Etter, Suzanne van der Veldt, Jisoo Choi, Sylvain Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsOptogeneticsHippocampal formationScramblingNeurosciencePhysicsComputer scienceBiologyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The precise temporal coordination of activity in the brain is thought to be fundamental for memory function. Inhibitory neurons in the medial septum provide a prominent source of innervation to the hippocampus and play a major role in controlling hippocampal theta (~8 Hz) oscillations. While pharmacological inhibition of medial septal neurons is known to disrupt memory, the exact role of septal inhibitory neurons in regulating hippocampal representations and memory is not fully understood. Here, we dissociate the role of theta rhythms in spatiotemporal coding and memory using an all-optical interrogation and recording approach. We find that optogenetic frequency scrambling stimulations abolish theta oscillations and modulate a portion of neurons in the hippocampus. Such stimulation decreased episodic and working memory retrieval while leaving hippocampal spatiotemporal codes intact. Our study suggests that theta rhythms play an essential role in memory but may not be necessary for hippocampal spatiotemporal codes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207