Individual differences in skilled reaching for food related to increased number of gestures: Evidence for goal and habit learning of skilled reaching.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skilled reaching in rodents and primate is motorically similar, but success in reaching by rodents is distinctively variable. The source of this variability has not been examined previously. Long-Evans rats were videotaped as they reached for food in 2 different reaching tasks, and endpoint measures of performance were examined in relation to variables previously associated with individual differences, including testing procedures, rehabilitation, movement ability, general locomotor activity, and cortical anatomy. There were individual differences in performance, but these were not related to the dependent measures related to training, movement ability, locomotor activity, or anatomy (e.g., brain with cortical thickness, acetylcholinesterase and neuron density, pyramidal tract size). Success was negatively related to numbers of gestures (non-weight-bearing movements of the reaching limb) used on a reach, however. The results are discussed in relation to the idea that individual differences in response strategy bias some rats to use a more successful goal strategy and others to use a less successful habit strategy for skilled reaching.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".