↓ Skip to main content

Appetitive and Aversive Visual Learning in Freely Moving Drosophila

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
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
Appetitive and Aversive Visual Learning in Freely Moving Drosophila
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2010
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2010.00010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Schnaitmann, Katrin Vogt, Tilman Triphan, Hiromu Tanimoto

Abstract

To compare appetitive and aversive visual memories of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, we developed a new paradigm for classical conditioning. Adult flies are trained en masse to differentially associate one of two visual conditioned stimuli (CS) (blue and green light as CS) with an appetitive or aversive chemical substance (unconditioned stimulus or US). In a test phase, flies are given a choice between the paired and the unpaired visual stimuli. Associative memory is measured based on altered visual preference in the test. If a group of flies has, for example, received a sugar reward with green light in the training, they show a significantly higher preference for the green stimulus during the test than another group of flies having received the same reward with blue light. We demonstrate critical parameters for the formation of visual appetitive memory, such as training repetition, order of reinforcement, starvation, and individual conditioning. Furthermore, we show that formic acid can act as an aversive chemical reinforcer, yielding weak, yet significant, aversive memory. These results provide a basis for future investigations into the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying visual memory and perception in Drosophila.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 130 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 23%
Researcher 28 20%
Student > Bachelor 21 15%
Student > Master 15 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 5%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 20 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 63 45%
Neuroscience 32 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 4%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 20 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 March 2012.
All research outputs
#18,304,874
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,585
of 3,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,937
of 163,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#22
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 163,496 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.