Developmental onset distinguishes three types of spontaneous recognition memory in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spontaneous recognition memory tasks build on an animal's natural preference for novelty to assess the what, where and when components of episodic memory. Their simplicity, ethological relevance and cross-species adaptability make them extremely useful to study the physiology and pathology of memory. Recognition memory deficits are common in rodent models of neurodevelopmental disorders, and yet very little is known about the expression of spontaneous recognition memory in young rodents. This is exacerbated by the paucity of data on the developmental onset of recognition memory in mice, a major animal model of disease. To address this, we characterized the ontogeny of three types of spontaneous recognition memory in mice: object location, novel object recognition and temporal order recognition. We found that object location is the first to emerge, at postnatal day (P)21. This was followed by novel object recognition (24 h delay), at P25. Temporal order recognition was the last to emerge, at P28. Elucidating the developmental expression of recognition memory in mice is critical to improving our understanding of the ontogeny of episodic memory, and establishes a necessary blueprint to apply these tasks to probe cognitive deficits at clinically relevant time points in animal models of developmental disorders.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".