Figure 1.
The probability of proboscis extension to the first stimulus of the habituation session (red) or the dishabituating stimulus presented to the contralateral tarsus at the end of the session (blue) for the wildtype flies (A) and rutabaga (B) following 2–4 hours of food deprivation.
Figure 2.
The effects of the period of food deprivation on PER habituation.
A. Total number of PERs produced during the habituation session at 1–4 hours of food deprivation. B-C. PER habituation for the wildtype flies (B) and rutabaga (C) following 1–4 hours of food deprivation. Numbers in parentheses indicate sample size. D-E. The relative frequency distribution of totalPER scores at 1–4 hours of food deprivation for the wildtype flies (D) and rutabaga (E).
Figure 3.
The number of PERs produced during the first five trials predicts the upcoming pattern of habituation.
A-B. TotalPER increases in proportion with fivePER for the wildtype flies (A) and rutabaga (B) between 1–4 hfd. C-D. Habituation curves for homogenous subsets of fivePER (Scheffe) for the wildtype flies (C) and rutabaga (D). E. PER habituation for the wildtype flies and rutabaga that emitted 1 PER during the first five trials (fivePER = 1). F. Summary graph showing totalPER for different fivePER scores. Data collapsed across 1–4 hfd in C-F. Numbers in parantheses indicate sample size.
Figure 4.
Trials to first PER predict the upcoming pattern of habituation.
A. Average firstPER following 1–4 hfd. B. Average totalPER scores for the wildtype flies and rutabaga that started responding on trials 1–5+. C-D. Habituation curves for homogenous subsets of firstPER (Scheffe). Habituation curves of rutabaga are plotted in accordance with the subsets identified for the wildtype flies for comparability. Data are collapsed across 1–4 hfd in B-D. Numbers in parantheses indicate sample size.
Figure 5.
The trial after which the flies make their first stop predicts the upcoming pattern of habituation.
A. Average firstSTOP for the flies that started responding on the first two trials following 1–4 hfd. B. Average totalPER increases with firstSTOP. C-D. Habituation curves for homogenous subsets of firstSTOP (Scheffe). Habituation curves of rutabaga are plotted in accordance with the subsets identified for the wildtype flies for comparability. Data are collapsed across 1–4 hfd in B-D. Numbers in parantheses indicate sample size.
Figure 6.
Number of labellar movements emitted during the first five trials (fiveLAB) predicts upcoming PER habituation.
A. Total number of labellar movements produced by the flies that emitted at least 1 PER between 1–4 hfd. B. TotalPER for the wildtype and rutabaga flies that produced 0–5 fiveLAB. C-D. Habituation curves for homogenous subsets of fiveLAB (Scheffe). Habituation curves of rutabaga are plotted in accordance with the subsets identified for the wildtype flies for comparability. Data are collapsed across 1–4 hfd in B-D. Numbers in parantheses indicate sample size.
Figure 7.
One hour memory of PER habituation.
One hour memory of PER habituation for the wildtype flies (A) and rutabaga (B).
Figure 8.
The trial to make the first stop is predictive of the expression of 1-hr memory of PER habituation
. A-B. One hour memory of PER habituation for the wildtype flies that made their first stop before (A) or after (B) the fifth trial. C-D. One hour memory of PER habituation for rutabaga that made their first stop before (C) or after (D) the fifth trial.
Figure 9.
Number of labellar movements during the first five trials is predictive of the expression of 1 hr PER habituation memory. A-B.
1 hour memory of PER habituation for the wildtype flies that emitted 3 or fewer (A), or 4 or more (B) labellar movements during the first five trials. C-D. 1 hour memory for rutabaga that produced 0 (C) or 1–5 labellar movements during the first five trials.