Interaction between Amount and Pattern of Training in the Induction of Intermediate- and Long-Term Memory for Sensitization in <i>Aplysia</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Aplysia, three distinct phases of memory for sensitization can be dissociated based on their temporal and molecular features. A single training trial induces short-term memory (STM, lasting <30 min), whereas five trials delivered at 15-min intervals induces both intermediate-term memory (ITM, lasting >90 min) and long-term memory (LTM, lasting >24 h). Here, we explore the interaction of amount and pattern of training in establishing ITM and LTM by examining memory for sensitization after different numbers of trials (each trial = one tail shock) and different patterns of training (massed vs. spaced). Under spaced training patterns, two trials produced STM exclusively, whereas four or five trials each produced both ITM and LTM. Three spaced trials failed to induce LTM but did produce an early decaying form of ITM (E-ITM) that was significantly shorter and weaker in magnitude than the late-decaying ITM (L-ITM) observed after four to five trials. In addition, E-ITM was induced after three trials with both massed and spaced patterns of training. However, L-ITM and LTM after four to five trials require spaced training: Four or five massed trials failed to induce LTM and produced only E-ITM. Collectively, our results indicate that in addition to three identified phases of memory for sensitization--STM, ITM, and LTM--a unique temporal profile of memory, E-ITM, is revealed by varying either the amount or pattern of training.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".