Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:

Classical and operant conditioning differentially modify the intrinsic properties of an identified neuron

Nature Neuroscience volume 9, pages 17–19 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

A long-standing debate in neuroscience is whether classical and operant conditioning are mechanistically similar or distinct. The feeding behavior of Aplysia provides a model system suitable for addressing this question. Here we report that classical and operant conditioning of feeding behavior differentially modify the intrinsic excitability of neuron B51, a critical element for the expression of the feeding response, thus revealing that these two forms of associative learning differ at the cellular level.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: In vivo and in vitro classical conditioning of feeding behavior.
Figure 2: Cellular correlates of classical conditioning.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pavlov, I.P. Conditioned Reflexes (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1927).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Skinner, B.F. The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis (Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1938).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rescorla, R.A. & Solomon, R.L. Psychol. Rev. 74, 151–182 (1967).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gormezano, I. & Tait, R.W. Pavlov. J. Biol. Sci. 11, 37–55 (1976).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Raymond, J.L., Baxter, D.A., Buonomano, D.V. & Byrne, J.H. Neural Netw. 5, 789–803 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lechner, H.A., Baxter, D.A. & Byrne, J.H. J. Neurosci. 20, 3369–3376 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Brembs, B., Lorenzetti, F.D., Reyes, F.D., Baxter, D.A. & Byrne, J.H. Science 296, 1706–1709 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nargeot, R., Baxter, D.A. & Byrne, J.H. J. Neurosci. 19, 2247–2260 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nargeot, R., Baxter, D.A. & Byrne, J.H. J. Neurosci. 19, 2261–2272 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mozzachiodi, R., Lechner, H.A., Baxter, D.A. & Byrne, J.H. Learn. Mem. 10, 478–494 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Plummer, M.R. & Kirk, M.D. J. Neurophysiol. 63, 539–558 (1990).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Morton, D.W. & Chiel, H.J. J. Comp. Physiol. [A] 172, 17–32 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Byrne, J.H. Physiol. Rev. 67, 329–439 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhang, W. & Linden, D.J. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 4, 885–900 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schultz, W. Neuron 36, 241–263 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank H.N. Nguyen for training many of the animals included in this study. This work was supported by the US National Institute of Mental Health (grant MH 58321).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Fred D Lorenzetti and Riccardo Mozzachiodi: These authors contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, W.M. Keck Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, The University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, 77030, Texas, USA

    Fred D Lorenzetti, Riccardo Mozzachiodi, Douglas A Baxter & John H Byrne

Authors
  1. Fred D Lorenzetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Riccardo Mozzachiodi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Douglas A Baxter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John H Byrne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John H Byrne.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Fig. 1

Classical conditioning training protocols. (PDF 196 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 2

Classical conditioning did not alter the CS-evoked inhibitory synaptic input to neuron B51. (PDF 192 kb)

Supplementary Fig. 3

Classical conditioning did not alter either the resting membrane potential or the input resistance of neuron B51. (PDF 291 kb)

Supplementary Discussion (PDF 139 kb)

Supplementary Methods (PDF 164 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lorenzetti, F., Mozzachiodi, R., Baxter, D. et al. Classical and operant conditioning differentially modify the intrinsic properties of an identified neuron. Nat Neurosci 9, 17–19 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1593

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1593

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing