Timing and cue competition in conditioning of the nictitating membrane response of the rabbit (<i>Oryctolagus cuniculus</i>)
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
Rabbits were classically conditioned using compounds of tone and light conditioned stimuli (CSs) presented with either simultaneous onsets (Experiment 1) or serial onsets (Experiment 2) in a delay conditioning paradigm. Training with the simultaneous compound reduced the likelihood of a conditioned response (CR) to the individual CSs ("mutual overshadowing") but left CR timing unaltered. CR peaks were consistently clustered around the time of unconditioned stimulus (US) delivery. Training with the serial compound (CSA→CSB→US) reduced responding to CSB ("temporal primacy/information effect") but this effect was prevented by prior CSB→US pairings. In both cases, serial compound training altered CR timing. On CSA→CSB test trials, the CRs were accelerated; the CR peaks occurred after CSB onset but well before the time of US delivery. Conversely, CRs on CSB- trials were decelerated; the distribution of CR peaks was variable but centered well after the US. Timing on CSB- trials was at most only slightly accelerated. The results are discussed with respect to processes of generalization and spectral timing applicable to the cerebellar and forebrain pathways in eyeblink preparations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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