MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042163420 · doi:10.1088/1741-2560/8/6/065010

The traveling salesrat: insights into the dynamics of efficient spatial navigation in the rodent

2011· article· en· W2042163420 on OpenAlexaff
Laurel Watkins de Jong, Brian J. Gereke, Gerard M. Martin, Jean‐Marc Fellous

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeightingComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Artificial intelligenceOrientation (vector space)PreferenceSpatial contextual awarenessDynamics (music)Set (abstract data type)Spatial analysisSpatial memoryField (mathematics)Machine learningPsychologyMathematicsNeuroscienceGeographyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rodent spatial navigation requires the dynamic evaluation of multiple sources of information, including visual cues, self-motion signals and reward signals. The nature of the evaluation, its dynamics and the relative weighting of the multiple information streams are largely unknown and have generated many hypotheses in the field of robotics. We use the framework of the traveling salesperson problem (TSP) to study how this evaluation may be achieved. The TSP is a classical artificial intelligence NP-hard problem that requires an agent to visit a fixed set of locations once, minimizing the total distance traveled. We show that after a few trials, rats converge on a short route between rewarded food cups. We propose that this route emerges from a series of local decisions that are derived from weighing information embedded in the context of the task. We study the relative weighting of spatial and reward information and establish that, in the conditions of this experiment, when the contingencies are not in conflict, rats choose the spatial or reward optimal solution. There was a trend toward a preference for space when the contingencies were in conflict. We also show that the spatial decision about which cup to go to next is biased by the orientation of the animal. Reward contingencies are also shown to significantly and dynamically modulate the decision-making process. This paradigm will allow for further neurophysiological studies aimed at understanding the synergistic role of brain areas involved in planning, reward processing and spatial navigation. These insights will in turn suggest new neural-like architectures for the control of mobile autonomous robots.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neural EngineeringSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207