A Behavioral and Genetic Dissection of Two Forms of Olfactory Plasticity in <i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i>: Adaptation and Habituation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous presentation of an olfactory stimulus causes a decrement of the chemotaxis response in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. However, the differences between the learning process of habituation (a readily reversible decrease in behavioral response) and other types of olfactory plasticity such as adaptation (a decrement in response due to sensory fatigue, which cannot be dishabituated) have not been addressed. The volatile odorant diacetyl (DA) was used within a single paradigm to assess the distinct processes of olfactory adaptation and habituation. Preexposing and testing worms to 100% DA vapors caused a chemotaxis decrement that was not reversible despite the presentation of potentially dishabituating stimuli. This DA adaptation was abolished in worms with an odr-10 mutation (encoding a high-affinity DA receptor on the AWA neuron), even though naive chemotaxis remained unaffected. Conversely, DA adaptation remained intact in odr-1 mutants (defective in AWC neuron-mediated olfactory behavior), even though naive chemotaxis to DA decreased. Surprisingly, exposure to vapors of intermediate concentrations of DA (0.01% and 25%) did not cause worms to exhibit any response decrement. In contrast to preexposure to high DA concentrations, preexposure to low DA concentrations (0.001%) produced habituation of the chemotaxis response (a dishabituating stimulus could reverse the response decrement back to baseline levels). The distinct behavioral effects produced by DA preexposure highlight a concentration-dependent dissociation between two decremental olfactory processes: adaptation at high DA concentrations versus habituation at low DA concentrations.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".