Interval timing is disrupted in female 5xFAD mice: An indication of altered memory processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal information processing in the seconds-to-minutes range is disrupted in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). In this study, we investigated the timing behavior of the 5xFAD mouse model of AD in the peak interval (PI) procedure. Nine-month-old female mice were trained with sucrose solution reinforcement for their first response after a fixed-interval (FI) and tested in the inter-mixed non-reinforced PI trials that lasted longer than FI. Timing performance indices were estimated from steady-state timed anticipatory nose-poking responses in the PI trials. We found that the time of maximal reward expectancy (peak time) of the 5xFAD mice was significantly earlier than that of the wild-type (WT) controls with no differences in other indices of timing performance. These behavioral differences corroborate the findings of previous studies on the disruption of temporal associative memory abilities of 5xFAD mice and can be accounted for by the scalar timing theory based on altered long-term memory consolidation of temporal information in the 5xFAD mice. This is the first study to directly show an interval timing phenotype in a genetic mouse model of AD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".