MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Extinction Requires New RNA and Protein Synthesis and the Soma of the Cell Right Pedal Dorsal 1 in<i>Lymnaea stagnalis</i>

2003· article· en· W1954164037 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Sangha, Andi Scheibenstock, Ross Morrow, Ken Lukowiak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsLymnaea stagnalisLymnaeaSomaDorsumBiologyExtinction (optical mineralogy)RNAProtein biosynthesisCell biologyNeuroscienceAnatomyZoologyEcologyGeneticsSnailPaleontologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lymnaea stagnalis were operantly conditioned to not perform aerial respiratory behavior. This learned response was subsequently extinguished. Here, we show that spaced extinction training is more effective than massed extinction training, in addition to the occurrence of spontaneous recovery. We also find evidence of a critical period within the first hour after extinction training in which new RNA and protein synthesis must occur for a memory of extinction training to be established. The memory for extinction training can also be extended using cooling and by preventing aerial respiration from occurring after extinction training. In addition, we demonstrate that memory formation of extinction training requires the soma of the cell right pedal dorsal 1, a cell that we have previously shown to be necessary for long-term memory consolidation and reconsolidation. This finding implies that the events that lead to the formation of extinction memory occur in the same cell that is responsible for long-term memory of operant conditioning. All of these data are consistent with the hypothesis that, during extinction, a new associative memory is being formed and that this new memory covers up, but does not abolish, the "old" 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations109
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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