Age affects pigeons’ (Columba livia) memory capacity but not representation of serial order during a locomotor sequential-learning task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aging affects individuals of every species, with sometimes detrimental effects on memory and cognition. The simultaneous-chaining task, a sequential-learning task, requires subjects to select items in a predetermined sequence, putting demands on memory and cognitive processing capacity. It is thus a useful tool to investigate age-related differences in these domains. Pigeons of three age groups (young, adult and aged) completed a locomotor adaptation of the task, learning a list of four items. Training began by presenting only the first item; additional items were added, one at a time, once previous items were reliably selected in their correct order. Although memory capacity declined noticeably with age, not all aged pigeons showed impairments compared to younger pigeons, suggesting that inter-individual variability emerged with age. During a subsequent free-recall memory test in the absence of reinforcement, when all trained items were presented alongside novel distractor items, most pigeons did not reproduce the trained sequence. During a further forced-choice test, when pigeons were given a choice between only two of the trained items, all three age groups showed evidence of an understanding of the ordinal relationship between items by choosing the earlier item, indicating that complex cognitive processing, unlike memory capacity, remained unaffected by age.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".