Diverse memory paradigms in<i>Drosophila</i>reveal diverse neural mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and attempted to assess the similarities and differences in the neural mechanisms supporting diverse types of memory. The simplest association memory assays are conditioning paradigms (olfactory, visual, and gustatory). A great deal of work has been done on these memories, revealing hundreds of genes and neural circuits supporting this memory. Variations of conditioning assays (reversal learning, trace conditioning, latent inhibition, and extinction) also reveal interesting memory mechanisms, whereas mechanisms supporting spatial memory (thermal maze, orientation memory, and heat box) and the conditioned suppression of innate behaviors (phototaxis, negative geotaxis, anemotaxis, and locomotion) remain largely unexplored. In recent years, there has been an increased interest in multisensory and multicomponent memories (context-dependent and cross-modal memory) and higher-order memory (sensory preconditioning and second-order conditioning). Some of this work has revealed how the intricate mushroom body (MB) neural circuitry can support more complex memories. Finally, the most complex memories are arguably those involving social memory: courtship conditioning and social learning (mate-copying and egg-laying behaviors). Currently, very little is known about the mechanisms supporting social memories. Overall, the MBs are important for association memories of multiple sensory modalities and multisensory integration, whereas the central complex is important for place, orientation, and navigation memories. Interestingly, several different types of memory appear to use similar or variants of the olfactory conditioning neural circuitry, which are repurposed in different ways.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".