update on self learning and longterm memory

on Monday, March 27th, 2017 2:07 | by

5 measurements on self learning from rover:

6 measurements on self learning form sitter:

10 measurements on self learning from wtb:

4 measrements on long term test from rover:

(right punishment)

3 measrements on long term test from sitter (fly stops a lot during test, this result may not be accurate):

(13:left punishment, 19: right punishment)

7 measrements on long term test from wtb

(left punishment)

 

PKG and WTB self learning test and long term memory test

on Monday, March 20th, 2017 12:11 | by

PKG rover self learning N=5

rover test on next day N=2

WTB self learning N=7

WTB test on next day N=4

2 rover, 4 wtb, 1 sitter test result after 24 hours

self learning from WTB

on Friday, March 10th, 2017 2:30 | by

By contrast of PKG rover, this result shows PI from wtb. N = 4

test1 PI= -0.05

test2 PI= -0.08

PKG rover update

on Monday, March 6th, 2017 10:17 | by

There is the result of 20 measurements on PKG rover.

pretest:-0.45

train1:0.56

train2:0.71

test1:0.47

train3:0.83

train4:0.87

test2:0.39

Laser power/angle adjustment

on Monday, February 20th, 2017 10:15 | by

After camera and punish laser adjusted, flies showed a high avoidence in the trail. Especially, when the fly was hit by punish laser in the first time of each training block. Unfortunately, there was a huge drift in the last trace after adjustment, but it shows a good avoidence in each training block.

Wild type Drosophila flying trace

on Monday, October 31st, 2016 12:03 | by

 

Wild Type Drosophila were used for single fly trace testing. The basic ideal is to record the spontaneous behavior (flying trace) after punishment training by heat. The followings are 3 subjects were test with performance index (PI).

  •  wtb_08 (right punishment).
pretest(PI1) training1(PI2) training2(PI3) test1(PI4) training3(PI5) traing4PI(PI6) test2/3(PI7)
10000 10000 10000 9984 9117 8113 10000

wtb_08

  • wtb_10 (left punishment).
pretest training1 training2 test1 training3 traing4 test2/3
1121 2583 2397 -4310 9433 9458 9960

wtb_10

  • wtb_14 (left punishment).
pretest training1 training2 test1 training3 traing4 test2/3
-832 -9510 -8339 -9903 -813 -574 -9887

wtb_14

  • Average.
pretest1/2 training1 training2 test1 training3 traing4 test2/3
all 3429 1024 1352 -1409 5912 5665 3357
left punishment 144 -3463 -2971 -7106 4310 4442 36

PS: From Julien’s paper, he demonstrates that there are 7 blocks were included in PI ( one pretest:PI1; four training test: PI2, PI3, PI5,PI6; two memory test: PI4,PI7)

 

Update

on Friday, July 1st, 2016 10:33 | by

redlightalltimeonmiddlearm

This is the same experiment as I previously showed of Gr66a>Chrimson (ATR). The only difference is that the light was on for the whole experiment, so that the flies could see the light before the entered the arm. Previously the light switched on once the fly went into the arm. The phenotype is much stronger (there is some classical component in it). I was trying to reinforce left or right turns but it does not seem to work after a bit trying out. It makes sense ecologically I think, that the right or left turns are not coupled to the reinforcement systems. I also have been thinking about the CS-US relation bitter taste-turn directions does not make sense ecologically, but maybe if instead of bitter, I apply pain or heat …it could work. I was thinking of reinforcing orientation as well as a speed threshold, or any other variants. What do you think? I would appreciate some ideas. Since I want to make sure about what am I measuring: operant/place/classical…

Modelling the T-maze screen

on Monday, March 14th, 2016 1:35 | by

linearmodelling

 

This is the markdown showing the protocol and results of the modelling for the choice in the T-maze. This is for calculating valence. Nevertheless, this needs to be confirmed with the results of more lines, it could be that it is overfitted, I would like to do in addition cross-validation. I´m actually doing crosses and finding new lines to have more lines to test.

UAS-PKC53eRNAI

on Friday, June 21st, 2013 6:47 | by

So I got new flies to test. After one day of testing, I had only one control fly going through the test, all the 5 other were dead. That one did not learn.

I thus confirm that there is a problem with these flies. This means that I have no phenotype with one RNAi, and one phenotype with the other non-triggered RNAi which is probably not self-learning specific. This also means that the RNAi induction may not be sufficient and that I have no positive control for that.

The RNAi data are therefore not conclusive at all (neither positive nor negative results can be linked to any gene).

PS: I have checked the flies and overexpression of GFP did occur after 2 days Heatshock.

 

I will check the mutant again next week and I will be over with learning experiments. Still need some anatomy but then, I can finish the paper.

first flight simulator experiment

on Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009 5:34 | by

While Bjoern is in Hawaii, I used the flight simulator.

I got sufficient good flies to do 4 experiments. That’s really encouraging that the majority of the flies survived, kept their hook and flew for more than the 20 minutes required!

The other side of the coin is that I did not had any learning effect, and fly do not even avoid the punished side during the training phases: it seems something’s wrong with the laser. I bet that there is a very important trick I don’t know about the laser alignment…

but Everything will work!