How do room and apparatus cues control navigation in the Morris water task? Evidence for distinct contributions to a movement vector.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study compared the relative influence of location and direction on navigation in the Morris water task. Rats were trained with a fixed hidden or cued platform, and probe trials were conducted with the pool repositioned such that the absolute spatial location of the platform was centered in the opposite quadrant of the pool. Rather than swimming to the platform location, rats swam in the direction that was reinforced during training, resulting in navigation to the relative location of the platform in the pool and search at the appropriate distance from the pool wall. Pool relocation tests revealed disruptions in cued navigation if the cued platform remained at the absolute location, whereas no disruption was observed if the platform remained at the relative location (same direction). The results indicate that direction holds greater influence than does location and further demonstrate that this observation is not altered by the amount of training or time on the platform. The authors propose that navigation in the water task involves a movement vector in which the distal cues and apparatus provide direction and distance information, respectively.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it