Cued platform training reveals early development of directional responding among preweanling rats in the Morris water task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies on the ontogeny of spatial learning report that rats younger than 19-21 days of age are incapable of learning the location of a platform relative to distal cues in the Morris water task. Here, we manipulated the spatial relationship of a cued platform to the pool and the distal visual room cues to investigate whether distal cues can control navigation among 16- to 24-day-old rats. Rats were trained to navigate to a cued platform in a rich distal cue environment. During critical test trials, the pool was shifted to a different, overlapping position and the cued platform was placed either in the same absolute location in the room or the same relative location in the pool as during training. Rats aged 17 days and older exhibited a disruption in performance when the cued platform was in the absolute location but not the relative location, indicating that rats had learned the direction of the cued platform within the distal cue environment. These observations indicate that (1) information acquired from distal room cues influences navigation as early as 17 days of age, (2) this distal cue information is preferentially used to guide navigation in a particular direction rather than to a precise place in the room, and (3) the directional nature of the influence of distal cues on navigation is invariant across development.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".