Juvenile<i>Lymnaea</i>ventilate<i>,</i>learn and remember differently than do adult<i>Lymnaea</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult snails are capable of learning associatively not to perform aerial respiration and then to consolidate the acquired behaviour into long-term memory (LTM). Juvenile Lymnaea, however, perform aerial respiration significantly less often and the three-neuron circuit that drives this behaviour operates significantly differently than in it does in adults. We asked whether these ontogenic behavioural and neurophysiological differences are manifested as an altered ability of juveniles to learn and/or form LTM. We found that juvenile snails learn significantly less well than adults and are, as a group, incapable of forming LTM. To control for the possibility that the poor learning and inability to form memory were the result of juvenile's receiving on average fewer reinforcing stimuli because they perform aerial respiration less often than adults we subjected juveniles to an enforced period of hypoxia to "motivate" juveniles. Motivated juveniles perform aerial respiration as often as adults; yet these "motivated" juveniles continue to be poor learners and still cannot form LTM. Additionally, a small percentage of juveniles perform aerial respiration as often as adults (i.e. high responders). When these "high-responders" were trained they still exhibited poorer learning ability compared with adults and could not form LTM. We conclude that juvenile snails have a more difficult time learning and remembering to suppress aerial respiratory activity than do adults.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".