MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170610235 · doi:10.1242/jeb.00374

Associative learning and memory in<i>Lymnaea stagnalis</i>: how well do they remember?

2003· article· en· W2170610235 on OpenAlexaff
Ken Lukowiak, Susan Sangha, Chlöe McComb, Nishi Varshney, David Rosenegger, Hisayo Sadamoto, Andi Scheibenstock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymnaea stagnalisNeuroscienceEngramCognitive scienceContent-addressable memoryHoly GrailLymnaeaSimple (philosophy)Computer scienceBiologyCommunicationPsychologySnailArtificial intelligencePaleontologyArtificial neural networkPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations78
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207