Involuntary, unreinforced (pure) spatial learning is impaired by fimbria‐fornix but not by dorsal hippocampus lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pure spatial learning occurs when rats acquire information about an environment while exploring it in the absence of reinforcers. We previously reported that voluntary, unreinforced exploration of a radial maze retards subsequent reinforced conditioned cue preference (CCP) learning in the same maze. In the present experiment, we examined the effects of involuntary, unreinforced pre-exposure to a radial maze. During pre-exposure, rats were moved by an experimenter between the ends of two arms of a radial maze five times in 30 min. This form of pre-exposure retarded CCP learning, whereas rats that were not pre-exposed and rats that were pre-exposed to a maze in a different room displayed normal CCP learning. These findings suggest that some information specific to the maze environment was acquired during involuntary unreinforced pre-exposure to it. In experiment 2, the retardation of reinforced CCP learning by involuntary unreinforced pre-exposure was eliminated by fimbria-fornix lesions made before pre-exposure but was unaffected by fimbria-fornix lesions made after pre-exposure but before training. Large neurotoxic lesions of the dorsal hippocampus made before pre-exposure had no effect on the retardation of CCP learning, but the rats with these lesions were impaired on a standard test of reinforced spatial learning in a water maze. The lesion effects in experiment 2 are similar to those previously reported for voluntary exploration and suggest that pure spatial learning may occur during both voluntary exploration of and involuntary exposure to an environment in the absence of reinforcers. Pure spatial learning can apparently occur with exposure to two different locations within an environment, but the rats do not have to move between the locations voluntarily. An intact fimbria-fornix is required for acquisition but not expression of this form of learning. The hippocampus is not involved in this form of learning.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".