Associative learning and memory in<i>Lymnaea stagnalis</i>: how well do they remember?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The search for 'the how and the where' of memory formation in the brain, the engram, is still one of the unattained 'Holy Grails' of neuroscience. Over the years, various paths have been trodden in attempts to attain this goal, and while tantalizing glimpses appear now and then on the scientific horizon, the Grail still has not been grasped. One of the paths that investigators have walked is the invertebrate 'model system' approach. Some invertebrates possess relatively simple nervous systems that mediate relatively simple behaviours that are both interesting and trainable. In this commentary, we would like to shed light on a relatively new player, the pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis L., that is being used in the quest to illuminate 'the how and the where' the nervous systems encode and store memory. We will show that it is possible to demonstrate that a single neuron is a site of memory formation and storage for a form of associative learning in this lowly snail. It may be that the Grail is a little closer to being grasped.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".