Lysergic acid diethylamide modulates hippocampal and cortical local field potential oscillatory rhythms in male mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is a promising therapeutic for psychiatric disorders, but its physiological profile on the nervous system remains elusive. Rodent electrophysiological data has utilized in vivo single-unit electrophysiology recordings, while clinical neurophysiology studies have focused on spectral signatures using electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG). No study to date has examined these spectral signatures in freely moving mice. How LSD acutely modulates intracranial oscillatory rhythms is not known. Experimental approach Here we present the first in vivo electrophysiological investigation of LSD’s cortico-hippocampal effects in freely-moving male C57BL/6J mice using intracranial EEG (iEEG) recordings. We did not posit a hypothesis concerning the specific effects of LSD on power spectral density (PSD) due to the lack of preclinical literature as well as LSD’s promiscuous pharmacological profile. This study was purely exploratory. Key results Following intraperitoneal (IP) administration of 30µg/kg LSD, there was a global decrease in PSD signal power in both broadband and discrete narrow band oscillatory rhythms of the ventral hippocampus CA1 and CA3 regions. Similar but less robust effects were observed in the somatosensory and medial prefrontal cortices. These data confer with the existing clinical neurophysiology data. Lastly, LSD increased between-subject PSD signal power variance, suggesting individual-specific effects. Conclusion and implications Our data lends further credibility to the entropic brain theory of psychedelic drug actions. We conclude that the intracranial acute spectral signatures of LSD coincide with their clinical counterparts. Further work is needed to study cross-regional connectivity, such as frequency coupling.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".