Home bases formed to visual cues but not to self‐movement (dead reckoning) cues in exploring hippocampectomized rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial theory proposes that the hippocampus contributes to exploratory behavior allowing animals to acquire information about their environment. In the present study, the exploratory movements of control rats, bulbectomized (anosmic) rats and hippocampectomized rats using the neurotoxin N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) were monitored on a large circular table without walls and around which visual cues were manipulated. The rats displayed organized spatial behavior in that they developed home bases, one or more places operationally defined as those in which they spent a preponderance of time, in which they moved slowly, and to which they returned after excursions. Control rats and hippocampectomized rats were similar in that they established home bases: (i) adjacent to a proximal stable or moving visual landmark; (ii) in relation to more distant visual room cues; and (iii) in relation to contextually conditioned visual cues. Nevertheless, in exploratory tests given under infrared light, a wavelength to which rats are insensitive, control rats and bulbectomized rats established one or more home bases that were not dependent upon surface (e.g. olfactory) cues, whereas home base behavior was absent/fragmented in hippocampectomized rats. Thus, exploratory behavior, as exemplified by home base behavior, is organized in control and hippocampectomized rats in relation to visual cues, but is not organized in hippocampectomized rats when visual cues are absent. This result is discussed in relation to the idea that the hippocampus contributes to spatial behavior that is dependent upon guidance (dead reckoning) derived from self-movement cues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".