Application Timing of Complex Magnetic Fields Delineates Windows of Posttraining- Pretesting Vulnerability for Spatial and Motivational Behaviors in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male Wistar rats were trained in a two-session-per-day, non-matching-to-sample radial maze task. During the 2 hr interval between training sessions and testing sessions subjects were exposed for 60 min to either sham fields or to a low intensity (200 to 500 nT) electromagnetic (EM) complex pattern whose electrical (current) equivalent has been shown to elicit long-term potentiation (LTP) in hippocampal slices. This pattern was applied either immediately following the training sessions or immediately antecedent to the testing sessions. Exposures to the experimental field immediately following the training session were associated with an impairment in spatial memory as inferred by increased commissions of reference errors. Exposures immediately prior to the testing session were associated with decreased motivation as inferred by a reduction in speed of responding. These results suggest that the timing of the presentation of patterned magnetic fields may differentially affect the representations of habit strength and drive within the consolidating memory trace.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".