MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201759036 · doi:10.1002/cpz1.238

The Touchscreen‐Based Trial‐Unique, Nonmatching‐To‐Location (TUNL) Task as a Measure of Working Memory and Pattern Separation in Rats and Mice

2021· article· en· W3201759036 on OpenAlexafffund
Ilne L. Barnard, Timothy J. Onofrychuk, Dan L. McElroy, John G. Howland

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTouchscreenWorking memoryHabituationTask (project management)CognitionPsychologyLatency (audio)Computer scienceStimulus (psychology)Spatial memoryRodentNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyHuman–computer interactionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The TUNL task is an automated touchscreen task used to evaluate the cognitive processes involved in working memory (WM) and spatial pattern separation in rodents. Both rats and mice can be used. To elicit working memory processes, the rodent must distinguish between a sample (familiar) light stimulus and a novel light stimulus after a delay. With a correct selection, the rodent will receive a food reward. A major benefit of TUNL compared to other similar tasks is the circumvention of spatial "mediating strategies" that the rodent may use to supplement or replace working memory processes to complete the task successfully. Each trial is 'unique', as the stimuli are pseudo-randomized between trials in an array of spatial locations. The TUNL task uses a progression of six training steps to teach the rodent the associated rules necessary to complete the full task. Task performance is typically measured by trials completed and by accuracy. Task accuracy can be evaluated across various spatial separations to engage hippocampal-dependent processes involved in spatial pattern separation. The latency between trial responses can also be evaluated, with food reward collection latency as a measure of motivation. The TUNL task can be used to assess working memory and cognitive deficits in rodent models with neurodegenerative and neurological disorders, providing a valuable tool to screen for new treatment options, in addition to assessing basic neurobiology. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: Handling and habituation prior to training Basic Protocol 2: Initial Touch Training Basic Protocol 3: Must Touch Training Basic Protocol 4: Must Initiate Training Basic Protocol 5: Punish Incorrect Training Basic Protocol 6: Initial TUNL Training Basic Protocol 7: Full TUNL Training Support Protocol 1: Using ABET II touch program Support Protocol 2: Preparation of touchscreen chambers prior to training sessions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.199
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent ProtocolsSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207