Visualizing the Engram: Learning Stabilizes Odor Representations in the Olfactory Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nature of memory is a central issue in neuroscience. How does our representation of the world change with learning and experience? Here we use the transcription of Arc mRNA, which permits probing the neural representations of temporally separated events, to address this in a well characterized odor learning model. Rat pups readily associate odor with maternal care. In pups, the lateralized olfactory networks are independent, permitting separate training and within-subject control. We use multiday training to create an enduring memory of peppermint odor. Training stabilized rewarded, but not nonrewarded, odor representations in both mitral cells and associated granule cells of the olfactory bulb and in the pyramidal cells of the anterior piriform cortex. An enlarged core of stable, likely highly active neurons represent rewarded odor at both stages of the olfactory network. Odor representations in anterior piriform cortex were sparser than typical in adult rat and did not enlarge with learning. This sparser representation of odor is congruent with the maturation of lateral olfactory tract input in rat pups. Cortical representations elsewhere have been shown to be highly variable in electrophysiological experiments, suggesting brains operate normally using dynamic and network-modulated representations. The olfactory cortical representations here are consistent with the generalized associative model of sparse variable cortical representation, as normal responses to repeated odors were highly variable (∼70% of the cells change as indexed by Arc). Learning and memory modified rewarded odor ensembles to increase stability in a core representational component.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".