MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2242257091 · doi:10.1242/jeb.205.1.131

Gone but not forgotten: the lingering effects of intermediate-term memory on the persistence of long-term memory

2002· article· en· W2242257091 on OpenAlexaff
Kim Smyth, Susan Sangha, Ken Lukowiak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Persistence (discontinuity)Long-term memoryShort-term memoryPsychologyHistoryNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyGeologyPhysicsWorking memoryCognitionAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aerial respiratory behaviour can be operantly conditioned in Lymnaea stagnalis and, depending on the interval between the training sessions, memories of significantly different durations are produced. In naïve snails, a 15 min training procedure with a 30 min interval between three training sessions results in memory that persists for only 3 h (intermediate-term memory, ITM); whilst if the three 15 min training sessions are separated by a 1 h interval memory persists for 48 h (long-term memory, LTM). We found that if ITM training preceded LTM training, then LTM would persist for 24 h longer. This augmenting effect on LTM persistence could be demonstrated for up to 5 h following the last ITM training session, even though ITM was not observed at that time. However, if LTM training ensued 8 h after the last ITM training session, an augmented LTM did not occur. Extinguishing the memory produced by the ITM training procedure also prevented augmentation of LTM. That is, if an extinction procedure was given to the snails after the ITM training procedure, LTM did not persist longer than 48 h. Thus, at the behavioural level, ITM and LTM are interconnected.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations21
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207