MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Place field dynamics in retrosplenial cortex compared to hippocampus

2025· article· en· W4417210889 on OpenAlexafffund
Zaneta Navratilova, Dhruba Banerjee, Fjolla Muqolli, Jordan Zhang, Sunil Gandhi, Bruce L. McNaughton

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Neurobiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNational Eye InstituteDefense Sciences Office, DARPANational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsChromatin structure remodeling (RSC) complexRetrosplenial cortexHippocampal formationHippocampusLocal field potentialPlace cellCortex (anatomy)Dynamics (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The encoding, storage, and updating of memories in cortical networks are poorly understood. In retrosplenial cortex (RSC), cells respond to the animal's position as it traverses a real or virtual (VR) linear track. Most position correlated cells (PCCs) in RSC require an intact hippocampus to form, but survive subsequent hippocampal damage. To examine whether RSC and hippocampal PCCs undergo remapping and spatial tuning development in parallel or sequentially, neuronal activity in RSC or CA1 was recorded using two-photon calcium imaging in mice running on VR tracks. RSC PCC activity underwent global remapping like CA1, with approximately the same dynamics of tuning development in the novel context. However, fields in RSC did not show place field expansion, in familiar or novel environments. Thus, while most properties of global remapping are shared between RSC and CA1, place field shift and expansion are notably restricted to hippocampus. Thus, our data suggests that RSC place specificity is either not 'inherited' directly from hippocampus or the hippocampal influence on RSC PCC formation may be restricted to hippocampal spikes occurring in the early phase of the theta rhythm (and thus late within the place field).

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in NeurobiologySame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207