MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2318525787 · doi:10.1242/jeb.068049

HOW LONELINESS AFFECTS SNAILS' MEMORIES

2011· article· en· W2318525787 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn Knight

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessLymnaea stagnalisIsolation (microbiology)Affect (linguistics)SnailBiologyPsychologyEcologyZoologySocial psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loneliness isn't good for you. Sarah Dalesman from Hotchkiss Brain Institute, The University of Calgary, Canada, says, ‘Isolation has been shown in the past to act as a stress that often has negative effects on the ability of mammals to learn and form memories.’ But how does isolation affect the memory of an animal with a much simpler brain: the great pond snail, Lymnaea stagnalis? According to Dalesman, isolation does affect the mollusc's behaviour. She explains that the snails – which are hermaphrodites, having both male and female sexual organs – usually engage in reciprocal sex, taking it in turns to adopt the role of the male. However, after 8 days of isolation, the snails only take on the male role. Given the dramatic effect of isolation on the snail's simple behaviour, Dalesman and her principal investigator, Ken Lukowiak, wondered how loneliness might affect the mollusc's ability to from long-term memories (p. 4179).However, when Dalesman tested the snails' long-term memories after 8 days of isolation, they seemed unaffected. According to Dalesman, pond snails can be trained to keep their breathing tubes closed when they are in oxygen-starved water by giving them a gentle tap when ever they try to extend it to breathe. With the correct training regime, the snails can remember the lesson for over a day. Having expected that 8 days in solitary confinement would prevent the snails from laying down the long-term memory, the duo were surprised when the molluscs successfully remembered to keep their breathing tubes firmly shut 24 h after training. ‘We almost stopped there,’ admitted Dalesman, adding, ‘sbut we were fairly sure the snails were aware of lack of contact with other individuals, so we thought that changing the context in which they experience isolation might alter our results.’Knowing that low calcium water concentrations and predator odours are stressful for the snails – low calcium concentrations prevent the snails from forming long-term memories, a whiff of predator odour improves their memory, and a combination of the two leads to normal memory formation as if there was no stress – the duo decided to find out how combinations of the stresses in association with isolation affected the molluscs' memories.Amazingly, isolation improved the memories of the molluscs in stressful low calcium conditions. Meanwhile, 8 days of isolation did not affect the memories of snails experiencing the scent of a predator. However, when the duo combined all three stresses – solitary confinement, low calcium and the scent of a predator – the snails were unable to from the long-term memory after training. ‘This is the first time that we have found that kairomones [predator odour] don't enhance memory formation; instead their presence seems to result in memory being blocked’, says Dalesman.So isolation did affect the ability of the snails to form long-term memories, but it was entirely context dependent, with isolation improving memory in some situations while abolishing it in others.Dalesman and Lukowiak suspect that the snails' behavioural response to isolation – adopting the male role during mating – may make the low calcium situation less stressful because they require less calcium when reproducing as males than they do when producing eggs as females, freeing the isolated snails to form better memories. However, they suspect that a combination of all three stressors might push the snails over the edge. ‘Several different environmental stressors may just be too much to cope with and they are no longer able to pay enough attention to training to form long-term memory’, suggests Dalesman.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicMemory and Neural Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→