Strain differences in activity and emotionality do not account for differences in learning and memory performance between C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined emotionality, activity, learning and memory, as well as the influence of emotionality and activity on learning and memory performance in C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice using a mouse-test battery. DBA/2 mice performed more poorly than C57BL/6 mice in complex learning tasks such as the water maze and object recognition tasks. In contrast, C57BL/ 6 mice showed attenuated habituation tonovelty in the open field apparatus and poorer performance in the step-down passive avoidance task. The C57BL/6 mice were less exploratory and more anxious than the DBA/ 2 mice. The anxiety score (open arm entries in the elevated plus maze) was significantly correlated with all measures of learning and memory in the object recognition task, and some measures in the passive avoidance and water maze tasks. Analysis of covariance (with open arm entries as a covariate) revealed that some measures on trial 1 of the object recognition task, but not the memory scores on trial 2,were confounded by anxiety. No confounding factors of anxiety were found in the water maze or passive avoidance tasks. Similar results were obtained with the activity scores (line crossing and rearing in the open field). In conclusion, strain differences in activity and anxiety did not account for strain differences in learning and memory performance of C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mice. Nonetheless, the importance of using complete behavioural test batteries should be stressed to ensure that strain differences in learning and memory tasks are not confounded by non-cognitive factors.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".