|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
|
Fig. 2. Long-term memory (LTM), operant conditioning in `standard' and
H2S environments. (A) 18 naïve snails received operant
conditioning training under standard conditions (i.e. two 45 min sessions
separated by 1 h) with a memory test (MT) performed 24 h later. This cohort
exhibited both learning and memory. Learning was shown as the second training
session was significantly lower than the first, and memory was shown as the
memory test (MT) was significantly lower than the first session but not
significantly greater than the second training session (ANOVA
F(17,2)=20.9304, P<0.01; sessions 2 and 3 are
significantly different from session 1, P<0.01) (*signifies that a
session is significantly different from session 1 but not from session 2). (B)
A cohort of 23 snails that received the `more intense hypoxic challenge' also
demonstrated learning and memory. That is, since the number of openings in
session 2 was significantly less than in session 1 (ANOVA
F(22,2)=40.6394, P<0.01) learning was
demonstrated. Additionally, since the memory test session (MT) was
significantly different from session 1 but not different from session 2 memory
was shown (ANOVA F(22,2)=66.8919, P<0.01 and
F(22,2)=2.5811, P=0.1224, respectively). (C) A
separate cohort (N=23) of snails underwent the training and testing
protocol in hypoxia + H2S (100 µmol l–1). These
snails showed neither learning nor memory. That is, the data in session 2 were
not significantly different than that in session 1 (i.e. no learning) and the
memory test session (MT) was not significantly different from session 1 (i.e.
criteria for memory not met; ANOVA F(22,2)=2.3095,
P=0.1112; no significant difference between sessions).
|
