Enhanced performance of aged rats in contingency degradation and instrumental extinction tasks.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normal aging in rats affects behavioral performance on a variety of associative learning tasks under Pavlovian conditions. There is little information, however, on whether aging also impacts performance of instrumental tasks. Young (9-12 months) and aged (24-27 months) Fisher 344 rats were trained to press distinct levers associated with either maltodextrin or sucrose. The rats in both age groups increased their lever press frequency at a similar rate, suggesting that the initial acquisition of this instrumental task is not affected by aging. Using a contingency degradation procedure, we then addressed whether aged rats could adapt their behavior to changes in action-outcome contingencies. We found that young and aged rats do adapt, but that a different schedule of reinforcement is necessary to optimize performance in each age group. Finally, we also addressed whether aged rats can extinguish a lever press action as well as young rats, using 2 40-min extinction sessions on consecutive days. While extinction profiles were similar in young and aged rats on the first day of training, aged rats were faster to extinguish their lever presses on the second day, in spite of their performance levels being similar at the beginning of the session. Together these data support the finding that acquisition of instrumental lever press behaviors is preserved in aged rats and suggest that they have a different threshold for switching strategies in response to changes in action-outcome associations. This pattern of result implies that age-related changes in the brain are heterogeneous and widespread across structures.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".