COMPLEX MAGNETIC FIELDS ENABLE STATIC MAGNETIC FIELD CUE USE FOR RATS IN RADIAL MAZE TASKS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male Wistar rats were trained in an eight-arm radial maze task (two sessions per day, delayed-non-matching-to-sample) that included an intramaze static magnetic field "cue" (185 microT) specific to the entrance point of one of the arms. Rats were exposed daily for 60 min to a complex magnetic field waveform (theta-burst pattern, 200-500 nT), presented with several different interstimulus intervals (ISIs), either immediately following training sessions or immediately preceding testing sessions. Application of the theta-burst stimulus with a 4000 ms ISI significantly improved the rats' memory for the arm of the radial maze whose position was indicated by the presence of a static magnetic field cue. Reference memory errors were homogeneously distributed among all eight arms of the maze for sham-exposed rats, and among the other seven arms of the maze for complex magnetic field-treated rats. These results suggest that static magnetic field cues may be salient orienting cues even in a microenvironment such as a radial maze, but their use as a cue during maze learning in rats is dependent on whole-body application of a specific time-varying complex magnetic field.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".