Does leaving water make fish smarter? Terrestrial exposure and exercise improve spatial learning in an amphibious fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
to test the hypothesis that the spatial learning ability of amphibious fishes would be altered by exposure to terrestrial environments because of neural plasticity in the brain region linked to spatial cognition (dorsolateral pallium). We subjected fish to eight weeks of fluctuating air-water conditions or terrestrial exercise before assessing spatial learning using a bifurcating T-maze, and neurogenesis in the dorsolateral pallium by immunostaining for proliferating cell nuclear antigen. In support of our hypothesis, we found that air-water fluctuations and terrestrial exercise improved some markers of spatial learning. Moreover, air-water and exercised fish had 39% and 46% more proliferating cells in their dorsolateral pallium relative to control fish, respectively. Overall, our findings suggest that fish with more terrestrial tendencies may have a cognitive advantage over those that remain in water, which ultimately may influence their fitness in both aquatic and terrestrial settings. More broadly, understanding the factors that promote neural and behavioural plasticity in extant amphibious fishes may provide insights into how ancestral fishes successfully colonized novel terrestrial environments before giving rise to land-dwelling tetrapods.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".