Context Learning and the Effect of Context on Memory Retrieval in <i>Lymnaea</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerial respiratory behavior in Lymnaea was operantly conditioned so that the animals perform aerial respiration significantly less often. Using the standard training procedure (pond water made hypoxic by bubbling N2 through it) both food-deprived and fed animals learned and exhibited long-term memory (LTM). However, food-deprived animals exhibited neither learning nor memory when trained under a condition in which the hypoxic pond water also contained a food odorant (carrot, the food-odorant procedure). Fed animals, however, learned and exhibited LTM with the food-odorant procedure. Thus, the presence of the food odorant per se did not prevent learning or the establishment of LTM. Further experimentation, however, revealed that the ability of the snails to have recall (i.e., memory) for the learned behavior was dependent on the context in which memory was tested. That is, if animals were trained with the food-odorant procedure they could only exhibit recall if tested in the food-odorant context and vice versa with the standard training procedure. Thus, although fed animals could learn and show LTM with either training and testing procedure, LTM could only be seen when they were tested in the context in which they were trained.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".