MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404413080 · doi:10.1101/2024.11.14.623692

To Play or Not to Play? Effects of Playmate Familiarity and Social Isolation on Social Play Engagement in Three Laboratory Rat Strains

2024· preprint· en· W4404413080 on OpenAlexafffund
Isabella C. Orsucci, Jackson R. Ham, J. Lee, Susan Bowden, Alexa H. Veenema

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPsychologyJuvenileSocial isolationDevelopmental psychologySocial behaviorSocial relationSocial behaviourIsolation (microbiology)Social relationshipSocial psychologyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social play is a motivating and rewarding behavior displayed by juveniles of many mammalian species, including humans and rats. Social play is vital to the development of social skills. Autistic children show less social play engagement which may contribute to their impairments in social skills. There is limited knowledge about what external conditions may positively or negatively influence social play engagement in humans or other animals. Therefore, we determined how two common external conditions, playmate familiarity and social isolation, modulate social play levels and social play defense tactics in juveniles of three common laboratory rat strains: Long-Evans, Sprague-Dawley, and Wistar. Males and females were socially isolated for either 2h or 48h prior to social play testing and were then exposed to either a familiar (cage mate) or novel playmate, creating four testing conditions: 2h-Familiar, 48h-Familiar, 2h-Novel, and 48h-Novel. Both playmate familiarity and social isolation length influenced social play behavior levels and tactics in juvenile rats, but did so differently for each of the three rat strains. Long-Evans played most with a familiar playmate, irrespective of time isolated, Sprague-Dawley played most in the 48h-Familiar condition, and Wistar played the least in the 2h-Familiar condition, but Wistar played more with a novel playmate than Long-Evans and Sprague-Dawley. Analysis of social play tactics by the playmates in response to nape attacks by the experimental rats revealed strain differences with novel playmates. Here, Sprague-Dawley and Wistar defended more nape attacks than Long-Evans. Sprague-Dawley evaded these attacks, thereby shortening body contact. In contrast, Wistar turned to face their playmate attacker and showed more complete rotations, thereby extending body contact and wrestling longer. Role reversals, which increase social play reciprocity and reflect the quality of social play, were higher in Long-Evans and Sprague-Dawley with familiar playmates. Role reversals decreased for Sprague-Dawley but increased for Wistar after 48h isolation. The effects of playmate familiarity or social isolation length on social play levels and tactics were similar across sex for all three strains. In conclusion, we showed that two common external factors (playmate familiarity and social isolation length) that largely vary across social play studies have a major impact on the level and quality of social play in the three rat strains. Strain differences indicate higher level and quality of social play with familiar playmates in Long-Evans, with familiar playmates after short isolation in Sprague-Dawley, and with novel playmates after longer isolation for Wistar. Future research could determine whether strain differences in neuronal mechanisms underlie these condition-induced variations in social play engagement. Our findings are also informative in suggesting that external conditions like playmate familiarity and social isolation length could influence social play levels and social play quality in typical and atypical children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior→French-language works237,207→