Visual detection, pattern discrimination and visual acuity in 14 strains of mice
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
Based on the procedure of Prusky et al. (2000, Vision Research, 40, 2201-2209), we used a computer-based, two-alternative swim task to evaluate visual detection, pattern discrimination and visual acuity in 14 strains of mice from priority groups A and B of the JAX phenome project (129S1/SvImJ, A/J, AKR/J, BALB/cByJ, BALB/cJ, C3H/HeJ, C57BL/6J, CAST/Ei, DBA/2J, FVB/NJ, MOLF/Ei, SJL/J, SM/J and SPRET/Ei). Each mouse was tested for eight trials/day for 8 days on each of the three tests. There was a significant strain difference in visual ability in all three tests. Mice with reported normal vision (129S1/SvImJ, C57BL/6J and DBA/2J) and one albino strain (AKR/J) performed very well in these tasks. The other albino strains (A/J, BALB/cByJ and BALB/cJ) took longer to learn the tasks than mice with normal vision and did not reach the criterion of 70% correct. Mice with retinal degeneration (C3H/HeJ, FVB/NJ, MOLF/Ei and SJL/J) performed only at chance levels as did the three strains with unknown visual abilities (CAST/Ei, SM/J and SPRET/Ei). Because many behavioral tasks for rodents rely on visual cues, we suggest that the visual abilities of mice should be evaluated before they are tested in commonly used visuo-spatial learning and memory tasks.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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