One-trial conditioned taste aversion in<i>Lymnaea</i>: good and poor performers in long-term memory acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the majority of studies designed to elucidate the causal mechanisms of memory formation, certain members of the experimental cohort, even though subjected to exactly the same conditioning procedures, remember significantly better than others, whereas others show little or no long-term memory (LTM) formation. To begin to address the question of why this phenomenon occurs and thereby help clarify the causal mechanism of LTM formation, we used a conditioned taste aversion (CTA) procedure on individuals of the pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis and analyzed their subsequent behavior. Using sucrose as an appetitive stimulus and KCl as an aversive stimulus, we obtained a constant ratio of ;poor' to ;good' performers for CTA-LTM. We found that approximately 40% of trained snails possessed LTM following a one-trial conditioning procedure. When we examined the time-window necessary for the memory consolidation, we found that if we cooled snails to 4 degrees C for 30 min within 10 min after the one-trial conditioning, LTM was blocked. However, with delayed cooling (i.e. longer than 10 min), LTM was present. We could further interfere with LTM formation by inducing inhibitory learning (i.e. backward conditioning) after the one-trial conditioning. Finally, we examined whether we could motivate snails to acquire LTM by depriving them of food for 5 days before the one-trial conditioning. Food-deprived snails, however, failed to exhibit LTM following the one-trial conditioning. These results will help us begin to clarify why some individuals are better at learning and forming memory for specific tasks at the neuronal level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".