Consolidation and reconsolidation of memory in black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple phases of protein synthesis are necessary for the synaptic modifications that consolidate long-term memory. The reconsolidation hypothesis supposes that information in long-term memory becomes labile and subject to change when retrieved and must be reconsolidated into long-term memory. The current study used the protein synthesis inhibitor anisomycin to examine memory consolidation in birds and to test the reconsolidation hypothesis. Black-capped chickadees store food and usually remember which of their caches they have emptied and which they have left full. In Experiment 1, anisomycin was injected either immediately and 2 hr after food caching, or 4 and 6 hr after food caching. Inhibition of protein synthesis impaired memory for cache sites 24 and 48 hr later. In Experiment 2, it was hypothesized that long-term memory for food caches becomes labile as predicted by the reconsolidation hypothesis when birds search for caches. Anisomycin was administered immediately after chickadees had searched for their caches. Inhibition of protein synthesis should disrupt memory for caches left full if these sites are retrieved from long-term memory and require reconsolidation. Control birds were later more likely to revisit full caches than caches they had emptied. Birds given anisomycin revisited both kinds of caches and did not distinguish between them. This result shows that reconsolidation of full caches into long-term memory is not necessary following search for cache sites, but also shows that protein synthesis-dependent consolidation is required for updating the status of emptied caches.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".