Rodent Test of Attention and Impulsivity: The 5‐Choice Serial Reaction Time Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 5-choice serial reaction time task (5-CSRTT) is employed extensively to measure attention in rodents. The assay involves animals trained to respond to a brief, unpredictable visual stimulus presented in one of five locations. The effects of experimental manipulations on response speed and choice accuracy are measured, and each related to attentional performance. The 5-CSRTT is also used to measure motor impulsivity. Adapted from a human task, the 5-CSRTT can be employed with rodents or primates, highlighting its translational value. Another strength of this procedure is its adaptability to task modification. An example is the 5-choice continuous performance task, which has both target and non-target trial types. Overall, the 5-CSRTT has proven to be valuable for drug discovery efforts aimed at identifying new agents for the treatment of central nervous system disorders and for further understanding the neurobiological processes of attention and impulsivity. Its flexibility offers considerable scope to the experimenter, and in this respect the task continues to evolve. © 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".