Sex differences in exploratory behavior of rats successfully performing the object-in-place recognition memory test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male and female rodents display unique search strategies when exploring new and familiar environments. Sex differences are well-documented in the literature and may be observed in tasks that rely on spontaneous exploration (e.g., recognition memory tests). Therefore, we assessed patterns of male and female rat behavior in the object-in-place (OiP) test, a common recognition memory paradigm involving object-location associations. Twelve male and 12 female adult Long Evans rats were tested four times in the 1-h OiP test and exploratory behaviors were compared during habituation, sample, and test phases. Results revealed that females moved faster and farther than males, showed increased immobility frequency and reduced immobility duration, reduced outer zone mobility duration, and increased inner zone entrances, compared to males during habituations. During sample phases, female rats moved faster than males, displayed reduced immobility frequency in the inner zone, and demonstrated consistent distance travelled across repeated sessions; conversely, male rats moved less in later sessions and exhibited increased mobility frequency in the outer zone. Analyses comparing test phase behavior revealed females continued to move faster than males; however, no other sex differences were observed. These findings are consistent with previous literature highlighting unique sex differences in explorative behaviors during recognition testing. Sex differences in locomotion and mobility state behaviors may be more indicative of individual motivation and search strategy between the sexes and less indicative of recognition memory.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".