MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052706542 · doi:10.1037/0097-7403.33.2.100

How do room and apparatus cues control navigation in the Morris water task? Evidence for distinct contributions to a movement vector.

2007· article· en· W2052706542 on OpenAlexaff
Derek A. Hamilton, Katherine G. Akers, Michael P. Weisend, Robert J. Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCued speechTask (project management)Movement (music)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceSpatial learningComputer visionSimulationMorris water navigation taskPsychologyCognitive psychologyEngineeringNeuroscienceAcousticsCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations97
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior ProcessesSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207