Does Conditioned Taste Aversion Learning in the Pond Snail<i>Lymnaea stagnalis</i>Produce Conditioned Fear?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In conditioned taste aversion (CTA) training performed on the pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis, a stimulus (the conditional stimulus, CS; e.g., sucrose) that elicits a feeding response is paired with an aversive stimulus (the unconditional stimulus, US) that elicits the whole-body withdrawal response and inhibits feeding. After CTA training and memory formation, the CS no longer elicits feeding. We hypothesize that one reason for this result is that after CTA training the CS now elicits a fear response. Consistent with this hypothesis, we predict the CS will cause (1) the heart to skip a beat and (2) a significant change in the heart rate. Such changes are seen in mammalian preparations exposed to fearful stimuli. We found that in snails exhibiting long-term memory for one-trial CTA (i.e., good learners) the CS significantly increased the probability of a skipped heartbeat, but did not significantly change the heart rate. The probability of a skipped heartbeat was unaltered in control snails given backward conditioning (US followed by CS) or in snails that did not acquire associative learning (i.e., poor learners) after the one-trial CTA training. These results suggest that as a consequence of acquiring CTA, the CS evokes conditioned fear in the conditioned snails, as evidenced by a change in the nervous system control of cardiac activity.
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) | 0.001 | 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".