Critical mass: The rise of a touchscreen technology community for rodent cognitive testing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rise in the number of users and institutions utilizing the rodent touchscreen technology for cognitive testing over the past decade has prompted the need for knowledge mobilization and community building. To address the needs of the growing touchscreen community, the first international touchscreen symposium was hosted at Western University. Attendees from around the world attended talks from expert neuroscientists using touchscreens to examine a vast array of questions regarding cognition and the nervous system. In addition to the symposium, a subset of attendees was invited to partake in a hands-on training course where they received touchscreen training covering both hardware and software components. Beyond the two touchscreen events, virtual platforms have been developed to further support touchscreen users: (a) Mousebytes.ca, which includes a data repository of rodent touchscreen tasks, and (b) Touchscreencognition.org, an online community with numerous training and community resources, perhaps most notably a forum where members can ask and answer questions. The advantages of the rodent touchscreen technology for cognitive neuroscience research has allowed neuroscientists from diverse backgrounds to test specific cognitive processes using well-validated and standardized apparatus, contributing to its rise in popularity and its relevance to modern neuroscience research. The commitment of the touchscreen community to data, task development and information sharing not only ensures an expansive future of the use of rodent touchscreen technology but additionally, quality research that will increase translation from preclinical studies to clinical successes.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it