↓ Skip to main content

A Normative Theory of Forgetting: Lessons from the Fruit Fly

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
40 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Normative Theory of Forgetting: Lessons from the Fruit Fly
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, June 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003640
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johanni Brea, Robert Urbanczik, Walter Senn

Abstract

Recent experiments revealed that the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster has a dedicated mechanism for forgetting: blocking the G-protein Rac leads to slower and activating Rac to faster forgetting. This active form of forgetting lacks a satisfactory functional explanation. We investigated optimal decision making for an agent adapting to a stochastic environment where a stimulus may switch between being indicative of reward or punishment. Like Drosophila, an optimal agent shows forgetting with a rate that is linked to the time scale of changes in the environment. Moreover, to reduce the odds of missing future reward, an optimal agent may trade the risk of immediate pain for information gain and thus forget faster after aversive conditioning. A simple neuronal network reproduces these features. Our theory shows that forgetting in Drosophila appears as an optimal adaptive behavior in a changing environment. This is in line with the view that forgetting is adaptive rather than a consequence of limitations of the memory system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Portugal 1 1%
Hungary 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 92 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 23%
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Professor 9 9%
Student > Master 9 9%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 11 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 23%
Neuroscience 22 22%
Psychology 10 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 7%
Engineering 6 6%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 15 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 January 2024.
All research outputs
#706,153
of 25,758,695 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#502
of 9,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,386
of 242,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#7
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,695 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,032 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.