Eyeblink conditioning leads to fewer synapses in the rabbit cerebellar cortex.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eyeblink conditioning involves the pairing of a conditioned stimulus (tone) to an aversive unconditioned stimulus (air puff). Although the circuitry that underlies this form of learning is well defined, synaptic changes in these structures have not been fully investigated. This experiment examined synaptic structural plasticity in the cerebellar cortex, a structure that has been found to modulate the acquisition and timing of the conditioned response. Long-term depression of Purkinje cells (PCs) in the cerebellar cortex has been proposed as a mechanism for releasing inhibition of the interpositus nuclei, a structure critical for the formation of the CR. Adult albino rabbits were randomly allocated to either a paired, unpaired, or exposure-only condition. The results showed a significant decrease in the number of excitatory synapses in the outer layer of the cerebellar cortex in the conditioned rabbits compared with controls. This finding suggests that a reduction in the number of excitatory synapses may contribute to the lasting depression of PC activity that is associated with eyeblink conditioning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".