MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400038630 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-48829-6

Claustrum neurons projecting to the anterior cingulate restrict engagement during sleep and behavior

2024· article· en· W4400038630 on OpenAlexafffund
Gal Atlan, Noa Matosevich, Noa Peretz‐Rivlin, Idit Marsh‐Yvgi, Noam Zelinger, Eden Chen, Timna Kleinman, Noa Bleistein, Efrat Sheinbach, Maya Groysman, Yuval Nir, Ami Citri

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersIsrael Science FoundationHebrew University of JerusalemNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsClaustrumDisengagement theoryAnterior cingulate cortexPsychologyNeuroscienceTask (project management)PopulationSleep (system call)CognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The claustrum has been linked to attention and sleep. We hypothesized that this reflects a shared function, determining responsiveness to stimuli, which spans the axis of engagement. To test this hypothesis, we recorded claustrum population dynamics from male mice during both sleep and an attentional task ('ENGAGE'). Heightened activity in claustrum neurons projecting to the anterior cingulate cortex (ACCp) corresponded to reduced sensory responsiveness during sleep. Similarly, in the ENGAGE task, heightened ACCp activity correlated with disengagement and behavioral lapses, while low ACCp activity correlated with hyper-engagement and impulsive errors. Chemogenetic elevation of ACCp activity reduced both awakenings during sleep and impulsive errors in the ENGAGE task. Furthermore, mice employing an exploration strategy in the task showed a stronger correlation between ACCp activity and performance compared to mice employing an exploitation strategy which reduced task complexity. Our results implicate ACCp claustrum neurons in restricting engagement during sleep and goal-directed behavior.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations35
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207