High-THC<i>Cannabis</i>Smoke Impairs Incidental Memory Capacity in Spontaneous Tests of Novelty Preference for Objects and Odors in Male Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Working memory is an executive function that orchestrates the use of limited amounts of information, referred to as working memory capacity, in cognitive functions.Cannabisexposure impairs working memory in humans; however, it is unclear whetherCannabisfacilitates or impairs rodent working memory and working memory capacity. The conflicting literature in rodent models may be at least partly because of the use of drug exposure paradigms that do not closely mirror patterns of humanCannabisuse. Here, we used an incidental memory capacity paradigm where a novelty preference is assessed after a short delay in spontaneous recognition-based tests. Either object or odor-based stimuli were used in test variations with sets of identical [identical stimuli test (IST)] and different [different stimuli test (DST)] stimuli (three or six) for low-memory and high-memory loads, respectively. Additionally, we developed a human-machine hybrid behavioral quantification approach which supplements stopwatch-based scoring with supervised machine learning-based classification. After validating the spontaneous IST and DST in male rats, 6-item test versions with the hybrid quantification method were used to evaluate the impact of acute exposure to high-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or high-CBDCannabissmoke on novelty preference. Under control conditions, male rats showed novelty preference in all test variations. We found that high-THC, but not high-CBD,Cannabissmoke exposure impaired novelty preference for objects under a high-memory load. Odor-based recognition deficits were seen under both low-memory and high-memory loads only following high-THC smoke exposure. Ultimately, these data show thatCannabissmoke exposure impacts incidental memory capacity of male rats in a memory load-dependent, and stimuli-specific manner.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".