@phdthesis{Masek2005,
  author    = {Masek, Pavel},
  title     = {Odor intensity learning in Drosophila},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-15546},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2005},
  abstract  = {It has been known for a long time that Drosophila can learn to discriminate not only between different odorants but also between different concentrations of the same odor. Olfactory associative learning has been described as a pairing between odorant and electric shock and since then, most of the experiments conducted in this respect have largely neglected the dual properties of odors: quality and intensity. For odorant-coupled short-term memory, a biochemical model has been proposed that mainly relies on the known cAMP signaling pathway. Mushroom bodies (MB) have been shown to be necessary and sufficient for this type of memory, and the MB-model of odor learning and short-term memory was established. Yet, theoretically, based on the MB-model, flies should not be able to learn concentrations if trained to the lower of the two concentrations in the test. In this thesis, I investigate the role of concentration-dependent learning, establishment of a concentration-dependent memory and their correlation to the standard two-odor learning as described by the MB-model. In order to highlight the difference between learning of quality and learning of intensity of the same odor I have tried to characterize the nature of the stimulus that is actually learned by the flies, leading to the conclusion that during the training flies learn all possible cues that are presented at the time. The type of the following test seems to govern the usage of the information available. This revealed a distinction between what flies learned and what is actually measured. Furthermore, I have shown that learning of concentration is associative and that it is symmetrical between high and low concentrations. I have also shown how the subjective quality perception of an odor changes with changing intensity, suggesting that one odor can have more than one scent. There is no proof that flies perceive a range of concentrations of one odorant as one (odor) quality. Flies display a certain level of concentration invariance that is limited and related to the particular concentration. Learning of concentration is relevant only to a limited range of concentrations within the boundaries of concentration invariance. Moreover, under certain conditions, two chemically distinct odorants could smell sufficiently similarly such, that they can be generalized between each other like if they would be of the same quality. Therefore, the abilities of the fly to identify the difference in quality or in intensity of the stimuli need to be distinguished. The way how the stimulus is analyzed and processed speaks in favor of a concept postulating the existence of two separated memories. To follow this concept, I have proposed a new form of memory called odor intensity memory (OIM), characterized it and compared it to other olfactory memories. OIM is independent of some members of the known cAMP signaling pathway and very likely forms the rutabaga-independent component of the standard two-odor memory. The rutabaga-dependent odor memory requires qualitatively different olfactory stimuli. OIM is revealed within the limits of concentration invariance where the memory test gives only sub-optimal performance for the concentration differences but discrimination of odor quality is not possible at all. Based on the available experimental tools, OIM seems to require the mushroom bodies the same as odor-quality memory but its properties are different. Flies can memorize the quality of several odorants at a given time but a newly formed memory of one odor interferes with the OIM stored before. In addition, the OIM lasts only 1 to 3 hours - much shorter than the odor-quality memory.},
  subject      = {Taufliege},
  language  = {en}
}