Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 695

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Drosophila Mushroom Body Mutants are Deficient in Olfactory Learning: Research Papers

Heisenberg, Martin, Borst, Alexander, Wagner, Sibylle, Byers, Duncan·1985·Journal of Neurogenetics

Abstract

Two Drosophila mutants are described in which the connections between the input to and the output from the mushroom bodies is largely interrupted. In all forms of the flies (larva, imago, male, female) showing the structural defect, olfactory conditioning is impaired. Learning is completely abolished when electroshock is used as reinforcement and partially suppressed in reward learning with sucrose. No influence of the mushroom body defect on the perception of the conditioning stimuli or on spontaneous olfactory behavior is observed. The defect seems not to impair learning of color discrimination tasks or operant learning involving visual cues.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/01677068509100140

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Heisenberg, M., Borst, A., Wagner, S., & Byers, D.
Venue
Journal of Neurogenetics
Published
1985-01
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
1-30
ISSN
  • 0167-7063 (ISSN-L)
  • 1563-5260
OpenAlex
W2142667969
Cited by
695
References
0
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.