Memory enhancement produced by post-training exposure to sucrose-conditioned cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of aversive and appetitive unconditioned stimuli (such as shock and food) are known to produce memory enhancement when they occur during the post-training period. Post-training exposure to conditioned aversive stimuli has also been shown to enhance memory consolidation processes. The present study shows for the first time that post-training exposure to conditioned stimuli previously paired with consumption of a sucrose solution also enhances memory consolidation. Male Long Evans rats were trained on a one-session conditioned cue preference (CCP) task on a radial arm maze. Immediately or 2 hours after training, rats consumed a sucrose solution or were exposed to cues previously paired with consumption of sucrose or cues previously paired with water. Twenty-four hours later, the rats were tested for a CCP. Immediate, but not delayed, post-training consumption of sucrose enhanced memory for the CCP. Immediate, but not delayed, post-training exposure to cues previously paired with sucrose, but not with water, also enhanced CCP memory. The possibility that rewarding and aversive conditioned stimuli affect memory by a common physiological process is discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".