La exposición no reforzada modifica la percepción fonética en ratas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La percepción fonética ha sido ampliamente estudiada en animales obteniendo resultados que revelan interesantes similitudes entre humanos y animales. Sin embargo, durante los últimos veinte años se ha mostrado que la experiencia con el lenguaje cambia la percepción fonética en humanos. En el presente estudio, exploramos el papel de la experiencia con el lenguaje en ratas, usando una exposición no reforzada en lugar de entrenamiento. Usando mera exposición en lugar de entrenamiento proporciona un modelo de aprendizaje más cercano a la conducta que quiere compararse, esto es, al aprendizaje del lenguaje por parte de un bebé, en donde no existe refuerzo explícito. Se realizaron dos experimentos. El primer experimento mostró que las ratas podían discriminar entre ejemplares de una misma categoría fonética. En el segundo experimento, se exploró el efecto de la exposición no reforzada a estímulos fonéticos que componen una categoría, por medio de la discriminación de elementos de la misma o de otra categoría fonética. Los resultados mostraron que una exposición no reforzada a estímulos fonéticos puede cambiar la percepción de estos.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".