Similarities in the development of place and cue navigation by rats in a swimming pool
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 development of place and cue spatial navigation was evaluated in 18-, 19-, and 20-day-old males in the Morris water task (MWT). Past work has suggested that place and cue learning develop at different rates, suggesting that the two aspects of spatial navigation have different neural substrates. In the present study, a new training methodology was used in which animals received spaced training trials, drying and warming in between trials to maintain body temperature, and two probe trial-dependent measures to evaluate spatial memory performance. All ages of rats had lower latencies on the cue task than on the place task. Nevertheless, 18-day-old rats did not learn either task as measured by acquisition latencies and probe trial-dependent measures. The 19- and 20-day-old rats learned both the place and cue tasks as measured by acquisition latency and direct swims to the correct platform location on the probe trial, and both 19- and 20-day-old rats demonstrated a strong spatial bias to the former platform location on the place probe trial but not on the cue probe trial. The finding that developmental onset of place and cue spatial navigation is rapid and complete by day 19 is discussed in relation to contemporary theories of spatial navigation.
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