Tactile Mechanisms and Afferents Underlying the Rat Pup Transport Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Juvenile rodents and other altricial mammals react with calming, immobility and folding up of feet to parental pickup, a set of behaviors referred to as transport response. Here we investigate sensory mechanisms underlying the rat transport response. Grasping rat pups in anterior neck positions evokes strong immobility and folding up of feet, whereas more posterior grasping positions have lesser effects on immobility and foot position. Transport responses are enhanced by slow (1Hz) and even more so by fast (4Hz) gentle shaking and translation of the pup, features consistent with parental transport. In response to lateral grasping, the forepaw below the grasping position points downwards and the forepaw lateral to the grasping position points upwards and medially. Such forepaw adjustments put the pup’s center of gravity below the grasping point, optimizing pup transportability along with folding up of feet and tail lifting. Tactile stimuli on the back, belly, tail, whisker, dorsal forepaws and dorsal hind-paws do not significantly affect the behaviour of anterior-neck-held pups. Instead, ground contact or paw stimulation consistent with ground contact disrupts transport responses. We identify afferents mediating the transport response by examining membrane labelling with FM1-43 following anterior neck grasping. We observe a dense innervation of the anterior neck skin region (∼30 terminals/ mm 2 ). We also observed an age-related decrease of cytochrome oxidase reactivity in the rat somatosensory cortical neck representation, a possible correlate to the developmental decrease in the pup transport response. We conclude anterior neck grasping and loss of ground contact trigger calming and postural adjustments for parental transport in rat pups, responses putatively driven from the densely innervated anterior neck skin.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".