MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1842264754 · doi:10.25011/cim.v30i4.2866

Memory from one-trial training is resistant to extinction in Lymnaea Stagnaliss

2007· article· en· W1842264754 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kara Murias, Martin Amarell, Ken Lukowiak

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymnaea stagnalisLymnaeaStimulus (psychology)Extinction (optical mineralogy)Memory consolidationPsychologyNeuroscienceConditioningAudiologyMedicineBiologySnailCognitive psychologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Memories that follow a traumatic event or extreme stress have been shown in some cases, to be particularly resistant to therapies meant to reduce their impact on patients. Two methods shown to decrease memories in laboratory tests are disruption after reactivation and extinction training. Newly formed memories undergo a period of stabilization, during which they are susceptible to amnesia treatments. Over a period of time memories become stabilized and can no longer be disrupted. However memories that are retrieved are returned to a labile state that must undergo a process of ‘reconsolidation’. Also, many memories can be occluded by ‘extinction training’, which consists of withholding the training stimulus in the training environment resulting in a new memory that overshadows the original training. Methods and Results: Using the Lymnaea stagnalis model system we show that memories following an extreme aversive stimulus demonstrate resistance to manipulation by these methods. Lymnaea stagnalis are fresh-water pond snails that can breathe either cutaneously or aerially through an orifice (pneumostome). Snails can form a long-term memory (LTM) to suppress pneumostome opening after operant conditioning consisting of either multiple sessions of repeated tactile stimulation to the orifice area each time the snail attempts to open its pneumostome or a single applications of 25mM KCl stimulus contingent with pneumostome opening (one-trial training; 1TT). The LTM formed following one-trial training has many of the same characteristics as memory formed following repetitive tactile training. Specifically, both are dependent on new mRNA synthesis in the circuit that controls aerial respiration and both can be blocked by cooling immediately after training. However, we show that memories in Lymnaea that form after a single, highly aversive stimulus, unlike LTM after repetitive training, aren’t disrupted after reactivation. We also attempted to extinguish the 1TT memory by placing the snails in the training beaker and not applying the KCl stimulus when they opened their pneumostome. When repetitive training was employed, extinction sessions such as these resulted in naïve levels of aerial respiration i.e. occlusion of the operantly trained memory. Conclusions: Therefore, memory after 1TT is more resistant to suppression by extinction training than memories formed after less aversive stimuli. Further research will attempt to determine the cellular mechanism that causes the memory to be particularly resilient.

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)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.425
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.007 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicine→Same topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research→French-language works237,207→