Optimisation of cognitive performance in rodent operant (touchscreen) testing: Evaluation and effects of reinforcer strength
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
Operant testing is a widely used and highly effective method of studying cognition in rodents. Performance on such tasks is sensitive to reinforcer strength. It is therefore advantageous to select effective reinforcers to minimize training times and maximize experimental throughput. To quantitatively investigate the control of behavior by different reinforcers, performance of mice was tested with either strawberry milkshake or a known powerful reinforcer, super saccharin (1.5% or 2% (w/v) saccharin/1.5% (w/v) glucose/water mixture). Mice were tested on fixed (FR)- and progressive-ratio (PR) schedules in the touchscreen-operant testing system. Under an FR schedule, both the rate of responding and number of trials completed were higher in animals responding for strawberry milkshake versus super saccharin. Under a PR schedule, mice were willing to emit similar numbers of responses for strawberry milkshake and super saccharin; however, analysis of the rate of responding revealed a significantly higher rate of responding by animals reinforced with milkshake versus super saccharin. To determine the impact of reinforcer strength on cognitive performance, strawberry milkshake and super saccharin-reinforced animals were compared on a touchscreen visual discrimination task. Animals reinforced by strawberry milkshake were significantly faster to acquire the discrimination than animals reinforced by super saccharin. Taken together, these results suggest that strawberry milkshake is superior to super saccharin for operant behavioral testing and further confirms that the application of response rate analysis to multiple ratio tasks is a highly sensitive method for the detection of behavioral differences relevant to learning and motivation.
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