Evaluating Sequential Response Learning in the Rodent Operant Touchscreen System
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
Sequential and cue-directed response learning in rodents have been previously shown to depend on intact striatal signaling. In particular, these behaviors rely on striatal dopamine and acetylcholine release, with an impairment of sequential response learning evident in animal models with alterations in the two systems. Here we provide a protocol for testing sequential response/response chain learning using the rodent touchscreen system. Specifically, the present protocol is designed to implement the heterogeneous sequence task, adapted from Keeler et al. (2014), in the rodent touchscreen apparatus. This task has been used previously to assess complex motor learning and response selection in mice. In the following protocol, the task is performed in touchscreen-based automated chambers with five response locations using food reinforcers to maintain performance. The sequence task requires the subject to make five nose pokes to white square stimuli appearing in five different locations sequentially from left to right. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol: Implementation of the heterogeneous sequence task Support Protocol: Creation of the heterogeneous sequence task ABET II touchscreen schedule.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it