A dynamical model of <i>C. elegans</i> thermal preference reveals independent excitatory and inhibitory learning pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caenorhabditis elegans is capable of learning and remembering behaviorally relevant cues such as smells, tastes, and temperature. This is an example of associative learning, a process in which behavior is modified by making associations between various stimuli. Since the mathematical theory of conditioning does not account for some of its salient aspects, such as spontaneous recovery of extinguished associations, accurate modeling of behavior of real animals during conditioning has turned out difficult. Here, we do this in the context of the dynamics of the thermal preference of C. elegans . We quantify C. elegans thermotaxis in response to various conditioning temperatures, starvation durations, and genetic perturbations using a high-resolution microfluidic droplet assay. We model these data comprehensively, within a biologically interpretable, multi-modal framework. We find that the strength of the thermal preference is composed of two independent, genetically separable contributions and requires a model with at least four dynamical variables. One pathway positively associates the experienced temperature independently of food and the other negatively associates with the temperature when food is absent. The multidimensional structure of the association strength provides an explanation for the apparent classical temperature–food association of C. elegans thermal preference and a number of longstanding questions in animal learning, including spontaneous recovery, asymmetric response to appetitive vs. aversive cues, latent inhibition, and generalization among similar cues.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".