Back

Prior cocaine use disrupts identification of hidden states by single units and neural ensembles in orbitofrontal cortex

Zong, W.; Mueller, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, J.; Schoenbaum, G.

2025-03-31 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.03.28.645972 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) is critical to identifying task structure and to generalizing appropriately across task states with similar underlying or hidden causes. This capability is at the heart of OFCs proposed role in a network responsible for cognitive mapping, and its loss can explain many deficits associated with OFC damage or inactivation. Substance use disorder is defined by behaviors that share much in common with these deficits, such as an inability to modify learned behaviors in the face of new information about undesired consequences. One explanation for this similarity would be if addictive drugs impacted the ability of OFC to recognize underlying similarities, hidden states, that allow information learned in one setting to be used in another. To explore this possibility, we trained rats to self-administer cocaine and then recorded single unit activity in lateral OFC as these rats performed in an odor sequence task consisting of unique and shared positions. In well-trained controls, we observed chance decoding of sequence at shared positions and near chance decoding even at unique positions, reflecting the irrelevance of distinguishing these positions in the task. By contrast, in cocaine-experienced rats, decoding remained significantly elevated, particularly at the positions that had superficial sensory differences that were collapsed in controls across learning. These neural differences were accompanied by increases in behavioral variability at these positions. A tensor component analysis showed that this effect of reduced generalization after cocaine use also extended across positions in the sequences. These results show that prior cocaine use disrupts the normal identification of hidden states by OFC.

Published in eLife (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.