Hierarchical Gradients of Encoded Spatial and Sensory Information in the Neocortex Are Attenuated by Dorsal Hippocampal Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During navigation, the neocortex actively integrates learned spatial context with current sensory experience to guide behaviors. However, the relative encoding of spatial and sensorimotor information among cortical cells, and whether hippocampal feedback continues to modify these properties after learning, remains poorly understood. Thus, two-photon microscopy of male and female Thy1-GCaMP6s mice was used to longitudinally image neurons spanning superficial retrosplenial cortex and layers II-Va of primary and secondary motor cortices before and after bilateral dorsal hippocampal lesions. During behavior on a familiar cued treadmill, the locations of two obstacles were interchanged to decouple place-tuning from cue-tuning among position-correlated cells with fields at those locations. Subpopulations of place and cue cells each formed interareal gradients such that higher-level cortical regions exhibited higher fractions of place cells, whereas lower-level regions exhibited higher fractions of cue cells. Position-correlated cells in the motor cortex also formed translaminar gradients; more superficial cells were more likely to exhibit fields and were more sparsely and precisely tuned than deeper cells. After dorsal hippocampal lesions, a neural representation of the learned environment persisted, but retrosplenial cortex exhibited significantly increased cue-tuning, and, in motor cortices, both position-correlated cell recruitment and population activity at the unstable obstacle locations became more homogeneously elevated across laminae. Altogether, these results support that the hippocampus continues to modulate cortical responses in familiar environments, and the relative impact of descending feedback obeys hierarchical interareal and interlaminar gradients opposite to the flow of ascending sensory inputs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".