MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389304051 · doi:10.1101/2023.12.01.569628

Intermediate CA1 is Required for Object-in-Place Recognition Memory in Mice

2023· preprint· en· W4389304051 on OpenAlexafffund
Arely Cruz-Sanchez, Mehreen Inayat, Parjanya Parikh, Ryan Appings, Francesca Violi, Maithé Arruda-Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto ScarboroughNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoUniversities Space Research Association
KeywordsNeuroscienceHippocampusPrefrontal cortexHippocampal formationPsychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Object (grammar)Identity (music)Autism spectrum disorderSpatial memorySemantic memoryRecognition memoryAssociation (psychology)Cognitive psychologyAutismWorking memoryComputer scienceCognitionDevelopmental psychologyArtificial intelligencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many behaviors that are essential for survival, such as retrieving food, finding shelter and locating predator cues, rely on forming effective associations between the identity and location of spatial elements. This identity-location association is commonly assessed in rodents using spontaneous object-in-place (OiP) recognition memory tasks. OiP recognition memory deficits are seen in autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, and are used to detect early onset of Alzheimer’s disease. These deficits are replicated in animal models of neurodevelopmental, neurodegenerative and chromosomal disorders. Mouse models have been widely adopted in behavioral and systems neuroscience research for their ease of genetic manipulations, and yet very few studies have successfully assessed OiP recognition memory or its neural correlates in mice. To address this limitation, we first established that adult C57/129J and C57BL/6J male and female mice are able to successfully perform the two-object, but not the four-object version of the spontaneous OiP recognition task, with retention intervals of five minutes and one hour. Next, using chemogenetic inhibition, we found that two-object OiP requires the activity of the intermediate CA1 (iCA1) subregion of the hippocampus, but not the medial prefrontal cortex or iCA1-medial prefrontal cortex connections. Our data identify hippocampal subregion specialization in the successful assessment of OiP recognition memory in mice, expanding our understanding of the neural basis of spatial memory processing. Significance Statement Associations between the identity and location of spatial elements (what-where associations), underlie essential behaviours such as finding food, locating shelter and safely navigating the environment. Deficits in identity-location processing occur in patients with neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders, and are replicated in rodent models using object-in-place (OiP) recognition tasks. While mice have emerged as a widely used animal model to study the biological mechanisms underlying these disorders, nothing is known about the neural substrates of OiP memory in mice. Here we have established and validated a robust experimental paradigm to assess OiP memory in mice, uncovering a specialized contribution of the hippocampal subregion intermediate CA1 to OiP performance and deepening our understanding of the neural signatures of spatial memory processing.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicMemory and Neural Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→