Conceptual, Spatial, and Cue Learning in the Morris Water Maze in Fast or Slow Kindling Rats: Attention Deficit Comorbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rat lines selectively bred for differences in amygdala excitability, manifested by "fast" or "slow" kindling epileptogenesis, display several comorbid features related to anxiety and learning. To assess the nature of the learning deficits in fast kindling rats, performance was evaluated in several variants of a Morris water-maze test. Regardless of whether the location of the platform was fixed or varied over days (matching-to-place task), the fast rats displayed inferior performance, suggesting both working and reference memory impairments. Furthermore, when the position of the platform was altered after the response was acquired, fast rats were more persistent in emitting the previously acquired response. The poor performance of fast rats was also evident in both cued and uncued tasks, indicating that their disturbed learning was not simply a reflection of a spatial deficit. Moreover, fast rats could be easily distracted by irrelevant cues, suggesting that these animals suffered from an attentional disturbance. Interestingly, when rats received several training trials with the platform elevated, permitting them to develop the concept of facile escape, the performance of fast rats improved greatly. The performance disturbance in fast rats may reflect difficulties in forming a conceptual framework under conditions involving some degree of ambiguity, as well as greater distractibility by irrelevant cues. These various attributes of the fast rats may serve as a potentially useful animal model of disorders characterized by an attention deficit.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".