Enhancement of behavioral nociceptive responses but not itching responses by viewing mirror images in adult mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Can mice recognize themselves in a mirror? The answer is unclear. Previous studies have reported that adult mice - when shown itch-like videos - demonstrated itch empathy. However, this was proven to be unreproducible in other studies. In the present study, we wanted to examine whether adult mice were able to recognize their mirror image. In our testing, we found that mice spent more time in the central area in an open field with mirrors surrounding the chamber than those in a normal open field. In a similar open field test with four mice placed in four directions, mice showed similar behavioral responses to those with mirrors. These results indicate that mice are able to recognize images in the mirror, however, they cannot distinguish their own mirror images from the mirror images of other mice. To repeat the experiments of itch empathy, we compared the itch responses of mice in the mirrored environment, to those without. No significant difference in itching responses was detected. Differently, in the case of chemical pain (formalin injection), animals' nociceptive responses to formalin during Phase II were significantly enhanced in the mirrored open field. A new format of heat map was developed to help the analysis of the trace of mice in the open field. Our results suggest that mice do recognize the presence of mice in the mirror, and their nociceptive - but not itch - responses are enhanced.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".