MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471606135 · doi:10.1037/xan0000066

Maintained directional navigation across environments in the Morris water task is dependent on vestibular cues.

2015· article· en· W2471606135 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin J. Clark, Nancy S. Hong, Dennis Bettenson, Jamie Woolford, Lewis Horwood, Robert J. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Animal Learning and Cognition · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsQuadrant (abdomen)Vestibular systemMorris water navigation taskPsychologySpatial learningOrientation (vector space)AudiologyPreferenceCardinal directionCommunicationNeuroscienceMedicineCognitionGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment was designed to test the hypothesis that an internally generated sense of spatial orientation contributes to navigation by rats in the Morris water task and to determine whether this strategy is dependent on vestibular cues. Rats were trained in a standard hidden platform procedure in which they received 8 daily swim trials. In a probe test, rats were carried in an opaque box to a pool located in a novel adjacent environment. During transport, 1 cohort of rats received a disorientation procedure, composed of gentle rotation in the box, while a second cohort served as transport controls. Upon being placed in the pool in the novel room, controls displayed a preference for the pool quadrant predicted by a retained directional response across rooms, whereas disoriented rats failed to display a preference for the same quadrant. Furthermore, control rats swam faster and more directly toward the target quadrant. Together, these findings suggest that rats retain a directional response based on vestibular cues across environments, which can be used to disambiguate geometrically equivalent locations in a novel room and apparatus. (PsycINFO Database Record

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Animal Learning and CognitionSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207