MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163369914 · doi:10.1093/icb/42.4.725

Behavioral, Cellular, and Molecular Analysis of Memory in Aplysia I: Intermediate-Term Memory

2002· article· en· W2163369914 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael A. Sutton

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative and Comparative Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAplysiaTerm (time)NeuroscienceLong-term memoryBiologyMemory formationPhysicsCognitionHippocampus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Serotonin (5HT) induces short-term and long-term synaptic facilitation (STF and LTF, respectively) at sensory neuron to motor neuron (SN-MN) synapses in Aplysia, and these forms of plasticity are thought to contribute to short-term and long-term memory for behavioral sensitization. Recent evidence in Aplysia has identified a third phase of synaptic facilitation-intermediate-term facilitation (ITF)-that is temporally and mechanistically distinct from STF and LTF. Here, we review the findings of recent studies that have examined this unique intermediate-term phase at molecular, cellular, and behavioral levels. The results indicate that, at tail SN-MN synapses, multiple forms of ITF can be distinguished; they are induced via distinct mechanisms and use parallel molecular pathways for their expression. Moreover, we have incorporated the temporal and molecular features of these different forms of ITF at tail SN-MN synapses into behavioral analyses, and found that they accurately predict distinct forms of intermediate-term memory for sensitization of the tail-elicited siphon withdrawal reflex. These findings indicate that different types of experiences engage distinct molecular pathways in the service of memory retention over the same time domain.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative and Comparative BiologySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207