MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2780255420 · doi:10.1037/com0000096

Experience with featural-cue reliability influences featural- and geometric-cue use by mice (Mus musculus).

2017· article· en· W2780255420 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin Leonard, Tian Na, Tammy L. Ivanco, Debbie M. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of comparative psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)PsychologySensory cueCognitive psychologyOrientation (vector space)Computer scienceCommunicationComputer visionMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Orienting is a critical skill for all mobile animals. Two commonly studied visual components used to guide orientation in an environment are geometric (e.g., distance or direction) and featural cues (e.g., color or texture). Previous research has shown that visual-cue use and cue weighing can depend on the navigator's previous experience, the nature and reliability of the cues, and genetic factors. Accordingly, the domestic mouse (Mus musculus) is a species of increasing interest because of its potential as a model for human neurological disorders with associated spatial disorientation, as is seen in Alzheimer's disease. In the present study, adult C57BL/6 mice were trained to search for a hidden food reward in one corner of a rectangular environment with featural information displayed continuously along the walls. After training, one group of mice was given a block of testing in which the featural information was removed, followed by a second block of testing in which the featural information was put in conflict with the learned configuration of featural and geometric cues. A second group of mice was given the same set of tests, but in the reverse order. Our results show that the mice incidentally encoded the geometry of the environment if they had experience with featural cues being unreliable prior to tests, during which featural cues were completely removed (unstable). Furthermore, we found when featural and geometric cues provide conflicting spatial information, this unreliability of featural cues over the course of the study may influence cue weighing. (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)0.000
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 score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of comparative psychologySame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207