Age-related differences in perception and coding of attractive odorants in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hedonic perception deeply changes with aging, significantly impacting health and quality of life in elderly. In young adult mice, an odor hedonic signature is represented along the antero-posterior axis of olfactory bulb, and transferred to the olfactory tubercle and ventral tegmental area, promoting approach behavior. Here, we show that while the perception of unattractive odorants was unchanged in older mice (22 months), the appreciation of some but not all attractive odorants declined. Neural activity in the olfactory bulb and tubercle of older mice was consistently altered when attraction to pleasant odorants was impaired while maintained when the odorants kept their attractivity. Finally, in a self-stimulation paradigm, optogenetic stimulation of the olfactory bulb remained rewarding in older mice even without ventral tegmental area's response to the stimulation. Aging degrades behavioral and neural responses to some pleasant odorants but rewarding properties of olfactory bulb stimulation persisted, providing new insights into developing novel olfactory training strategies to elicit motivation even when the dopaminergic system is altered as observed in normal and/or neurodegenerative aging.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".