Cholinergic and behavior‐dependent beta and gamma waves are coupled between olfactory bulb and hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Olfactory oscillations may enhance cognitive processing through coupling with beta (β, 15-30 Hz) and gamma (γ, 30-160 Hz) activity in the hippocampus (HPC). We hypothesize that coupling between olfactory bulb (OB) and HPC oscillations is increased by cholinergic activation in control rats and is reduced in kainic-acid-treated epileptic rats, a model of temporal lobe epilepsy. OB γ2 (63-100 Hz) power was higher during walking and immobility-awake (IMM) compared to sleep, while γ1 (30-57 Hz) power was higher during grooming than other behavioral states. Muscarinic cholinergic agonist pilocarpine (25 mg/kg ip) with peripheral muscarinic blockade increased OB power and OB-HPC coherence at β and γ1 frequency bands. A similar effect was found after physostigmine (0.5 mg/kg ip) but not scopolamine (10 mg/kg ip). Pilocarpine increased bicoherence and cross-frequency coherence (CFC) between OB slow waves (SW, 1-5 Hz) and hippocampal β, γ1 and γ2 waves, with stronger coherence at CA1 alveus and CA3c than CA1 stratum radiatum. Bicoherence further revealed a nonlinear interaction of β waves in OB with β waves at the CA1-alveus. Beta and γ1 waves in OB or HPC were segregated at one phase of the OB-SW, opposite to the phase of γ2 and γ3 (100-160 Hz) waves, suggesting independent temporal processing of β/γ1 versus γ2/γ3 waves. At CA1 radiatum, kainic-acid-treated epileptic rats compared to control rats showed decreased theta power, theta-β and theta-γ2 CFC during baseline walking, decreased CFC of HPC SW with γ2 and γ3 waves during baseline IMM, and decreased coupling of OB SW with β and γ2 waves at CA1 alveus after pilocarpine. It is concluded that β and γ waves in the OB and HPC are modulated by a slow respiratory rhythm, in a cholinergic and behavior-dependent manner, and OB-HPC functional connectivity at β and γ frequencies may enhance cognitive functions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".