MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1824375928 · doi:10.1152/jn.2002.88.4.1915

Changes in the Activity of a CPG Neuron After the Reinforcement of an Operantly Conditioned Behavior in<i>Lymnaea</i>

2002· article· en· W1824375928 on OpenAlexaff
Gaynor E. Spencer, Mustapha Kazmi, Naweed I. Syed, Ken Lukowiak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymnaea stagnalisNeuroscienceReinforcementLymnaeaStimulus (psychology)Central pattern generatorOperant conditioningConditioningClassical conditioningPsychologyNeuronBiologyAnatomySnailMedicineInternal medicineEcologyRhythmCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have previously shown that the aerial respiratory behavior of the mollusk Lymnaea stagnalis can be operantly conditioned, and the central pattern generating (CPG) neurons underlying this behavior have been identified. As neural correlates of operant conditioning remain poorly defined in both vertebrates and invertebrates, we have used the Lymnaea respiratory CPG to investigate neuronal changes associated with the change in behavior after conditioning. After operant conditioning of the intact animals, semi-intact preparations were dissected, so that changes in the respiratory behavior (pneumostome openings) and underlying activity of the identified CPG neuron, right pedal dorsal 1 (RPeD1), could be monitored simultaneously. RPeD1 was studied because it initiates the rhythmic activity of the CPG and receives chemo-sensory input from the pneumostome area. Pneumostome openings and RPeD1 activity were monitored both before and after a reinforcing training stimulus applied to the open pneumostome of operantly conditioned and yoked control preparations. After presentation of the reinforcing stimulus, there was a significant reduction in both breathing behavior and RPeD1 activity in operant preparations but not in yoked and naïve controls. Furthermore these changes were only significant in the subgroup of operantly conditioned animals described as good learners and not in poor learners. These data strongly suggest that changes in RPeD1 activity may underlie the behavioral changes associated with the reinforcement of operant conditioning of the respiratory behavior.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations74
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207