MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328053591 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2023.106481

Hippocampal conjunctive and complementary CA1 populations relate sensory events to movement

2023· article· en· W4328053591 on OpenAlexafffund
Samsoon Inayat, Brendan B. McAllister, Ian Q. Whishaw, Majid H. Mohajerani

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlzheimer SocietyUniversity of Lethbridge
KeywordsHippocampal formationNeuroscienceSensory systemCalcium imagingHippocampusMovement (music)BiologyPsychologyChemistryCalciumPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hippocampal CA1 neurons respond to sensory stimuli during enforced immobility, movement, and their transitions in a new conveyor belt task. Head-fixed mice were exposed to light flashes or air streams while at rest, spontaneously moving, or running a fixed distance. Two-photon calcium imaging of CA1 neurons revealed that 62% of 3341 imaged cells were active during one or more of 20 sensorimotor events. Of these active cells, 17% were active for any given sensorimotor event, with a higher proportion during locomotion. The study found two types of cells: Conjunctive cells that were active across multiple events, and complementary cells that were active only during individual events, encoding novel sensorimotor events or their delayed repetitions. The configuration of these cells across changing sensorimotor events may signify the role of hippocampus in functional networks integrating sensory information with ongoing movement making it suitable for movement guidance.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207