GABAergic inhibition shapes behavior and neural dynamics in human visual working memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuronal inhibition, primarily mediated by GABAergic neurotransmission, is crucial for brain development and healthy cognition. Gamma-aminobutyric acid concentration levels in sensory areas have been shown to correlate with hemodynamic and oscillatory neuronal responses. How these measures relate to one another during working memory, a higher-order cognitive process, is still poorly understood. We address this gap by collecting magnetoencephalography, functional magnetic resonance imaging, and Flumazenil positron emission tomography data within the same subject cohort using an n-back working-memory paradigm. By probing the relationship between GABAA receptor distribution, neural oscillations, and Blood Oxygen Level Dependent (BOLD) modulations, we found that GABAA receptor density in higher-order cortical areas predicted the reaction times on the working-memory task and correlated positively with the peak frequency of gamma power modulations and negatively with BOLD amplitude. These findings support and extend theories linking gamma oscillations and hemodynamic responses to gamma-aminobutyric acid neurotransmission and to the excitation-inhibition balance and cognitive performance in humans. Considering the small sample size of the study, future studies should test whether these findings also hold for other, larger cohorts as well as to examine in detail how the GABAergic system and neural fluctuations jointly support working-memory task performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".