MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2730532561 · doi:10.1177/0748730417716231

Interval Timing Is Preserved Despite Circadian Desynchrony in Rats: Constant Light and Heavy Water Studies

2017· article· en· W2730532561 on OpenAlexafffund
Christian C. Petersen, Ralph E. Mistlberger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Rhythms · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCircadian rhythmPeriod (music)Interval (graph theory)RhythmCircadian clockEndocrinologyInternal medicineBiologyChronobiologyMedicineMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanisms that enable mammals to time events that recur at 24-h intervals (circadian timing) and at arbitrary intervals in the seconds-to-minutes range (interval timing) are thought to be distinct at the computational and neurobiological levels. Recent evidence that disruption of circadian rhythmicity by constant light (LL) abolishes interval timing in mice challenges this assumption and suggests a critical role for circadian clocks in short interval timing. We sought to confirm and extend this finding by examining interval timing in rats in which circadian rhythmicity was disrupted by long-term exposure to LL or by chronic intake of 25% D 2 O. Adult, male Sprague-Dawley rats were housed in a light-dark (LD) cycle or in LL until free-running circadian rhythmicity was markedly disrupted or abolished. The rats were then trained and tested on 15- and 30-sec peak-interval procedures, with water restriction used to motivate task performance. Interval timing was found to be unimpaired in LL rats, but a weak circadian activity rhythm was apparently rescued by the training procedure, possibly due to binge feeding that occurred during the 15-min water access period that followed training each day. A second group of rats in LL were therefore restricted to 6 daily meals scheduled at 4-h intervals. Despite a complete absence of circadian rhythmicity in this group, interval timing was again unaffected. To eliminate all possible temporal cues, we tested a third group of rats in LL by using a pseudo-randomized schedule. Again, interval timing remained accurate. Finally, rats tested in LD received 25% D 2 O in place of drinking water. This markedly lengthened the circadian period and caused a failure of LD entrainment but did not disrupt interval timing. These results indicate that interval timing in rats is resistant to disruption by manipulations of circadian timekeeping previously shown to impair interval timing in mice.

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)0.001
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological RhythmsSame topicCircadian rhythm and melatoninFrench-language works237,207