Figure 10. LTM specificity is compromised.
(A) Chemical structures of odorants. (B) Design of the experiment. For one group, presentation of 4-methylcyclohexanol was paired with sugar reward. The reciprocal group received sugar without odor. In the test situation, flies of each group were allowed to choose between the air and the mixture of the trained odor and the ‘contaminant’ (2-methylcyclohexanol). (C, D) The performance index declined more sharply with the increasing contamination ratio in STM (C; n = 16 for each) than in LTM (D; n = 24 for each). Each group was compared to the group that was tested without the contaminant (left most bar). Bar graphs are mean ± s.e.m. *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001, n.s.: p > 0.05.
Figure 10—figure supplement 1. LTM is less specific with another pair of odors.
(A) Chemical structures of odorants. (B, C) The performance declined more sharply in STM (B: n = 20 for each) than in LTM (C: n = 20 for each) also with this odor pair. Each group was compared to the group that was tested without the contaminant (left most bar). Bar graphs are mean ± s.e.m. *: p < 0.05, n.s.: p > 0.05.