Specific 50-kHz vocalizations are tightly linked to particular types of behavior in juvenile rats anticipating play
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rat ultrasonic vocalizations have been suggested to be either a byproduct of physical movement or, in the case of 50-kHz calls, a means to communicate positive affect. Yet there are up to 14 distinct types of 50-kHz calls, raising issues for both explanations. To discriminate between these theories and address the purpose for the numerous 50-kHz call types, we studied single juvenile rats that were waiting to play with a partner, a situation associated with a high number of 50-kHz calls. We used a Monte-Carlo shuffling procedure to identify vocalization-behavior correlations that were statistically different from chance. We found that certain call types ("split", "composite" and "multi-step") were strongly associated with running and jumping while other call types (those involving "trills") were more common during slower movements. Further, non-locomotor states such as resting and rearing were strongly predictive of a lack of vocalizations. We also found that the various sub-types of USVs can be clustered into 3-4 categories based on similarities in the way they are used. We did not find a one-to-one relationship between any movements and specific vocalizations, casting doubt on the motion byproduct theory. On the other hand, the use of specific calls during specific behaviors is problematic for the affect communication hypothesis. Based on our results, we suggest that ultrasonic calls may serve to coordinate moment-to-moment social interactions.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".