When the individual comes into play: The role of self and the partner in the dyadic play fighting of rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social play in rats is rewarding and important for the development of brain and social skills. There are differences in the amount of play behavior displayed among individuals, with earlier studies suggesting that, despite variation across trials, individual differences tend to be consistent. In the present study, juvenile Lister-hooded rats were paired with a different, unfamiliar same-sex partner on three days and based on the amount of play each individual initiated, it was characterized as a high, medium or low player. Using this categorization, we explored three features related to individual differences. First, we show that by increasing the number of test days from two, as was done in a previous study (Lesscher et al., 2021), to three, characterization was effectively improved. Secondly, while the earlier study only used males, the present study showed that both sexes exhibit a similar pattern of individual differences in the degree of playfulness. Even though low players consistently initiated less play than medium and high players, all rats varied in how much play they initiated from one trial to the next. Thirdly, we assessed two potential mechanisms by which the playfulness of one rat can modify the level of playfulness of the other rat (i.e., emotional contagion vs homeostasis). Analyses of individuals' contribution to the play of dyads suggest that rats consistently adjust their play behavior depending on the behavior displayed by the partner. Since this adjustment can be positive or negative, our data support a homeostatic mechanism, whereby individuals increase or decrease the amount of play they initiate, which results in the experience of an overall stable pattern of play across trials. Future research will investigate the neural bases for individual differences in play and how rats maintain a preferred level of play.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".