arxiv: 2604.28007 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🧬 q-bio.NC

Recognition: unknown

Multisensory learning recruits visual neurons into an olfactory memory engram

Zeynep Okray , Nils Otto , Anna A. Cook , Clifford Talbot , Ashwin Miriyala , Mart\'in Klappenbach , Ciara Stern , Kieran Desmond

show 2 more authors

Paola Vargas-Gutierrez Scott Waddell

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 06:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.NC

keywords multisensory learningmemory engramDrosophilaKenyon cellscross-modal bindingolfactory memorymushroom bodyDPM neurons

0 comments

The pith

Multisensory training in fruit flies recruits visual Kenyon cells into the olfactory memory engram to improve recall from single cues.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that fruit flies form stronger memories when an experience pairs a color with an odor than when either cue is learned alone. This occurs because the memory representation for the odor expands to include Kenyon cells that normally respond only to visual input. The expansion depends on dopaminergic reinforcement acting through DPM and APL neurons to bridge the two sensory streams inside the mushroom body. Once the engram is broadened, either the color or the odor alone can trigger the full memory. The result is a concrete neural mechanism for cross-modal binding that lets one sensory feature stand in for a multimodal event.

Core claim

Combining colours and odours improved memory performance in Drosophila even when each sensory modality was tested alone. Visually-selective mushroom body Kenyon Cells are required for this enhancement of both visual and olfactory memory recall after multisensory training. Connectomics indicates that valence-relevant dopaminergic reinforcement permits the KC-spanning serotonergic DPM neurons to bridge previously modality-selective KC streams. DPM transmission is uniquely required during multisensory memory formation and for enhanced expression of olfactory memory afterwards, while DopR1 dopamine receptor signaling in APL neurons is also necessary, presumably to release local GABA-ergic tone.

What carries the argument

DPM-neuron bridging of modality-selective Kenyon cell streams, enabled by dopaminergic signaling through APL neurons, that expands the olfactory engram to include visual KCs.

If this is right

Memory performance improves when training combines color and odor compared with training on either cue alone.
A single sensory feature can retrieve the memory of the entire multimodal experience.
Visually-selective Kenyon cells become part of the olfactory memory engram only after multisensory training.
DPM transmission during training is required for both engram expansion and the later enhancement of unisensory recall.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same bridging logic could allow other sensory modalities to be incorporated into an existing engram when they are paired during learning.
Disrupting DPM or APL function selectively during the training phase might leave unisensory memories intact while abolishing the benefit of multisensory training.
If the mechanism is conserved across species, analogous recruitment of modality-specific neurons into multimodal engrams could be examined in vertebrate memory circuits.

Load-bearing premise

The observed recruitment of visually-selective Kenyon cells and the necessity of DPM and APL signaling are caused specifically by the multisensory training rather than off-target effects of the genetic tools used to manipulate the neurons.

What would settle it

Labeling or imaging the same Kenyon cells before and after multisensory training to test whether visually-selective cells are newly incorporated into the active olfactory engram; failure to observe such recruitment would falsify the expansion claim.

read the original abstract

Associating multiple sensory cues with a single experience or object is a fundamental process that improves object recognition and memory performance. However, neural mechanisms that bind sensory features during learning and augment memory expression are unknown. Here we demonstrate multisensory appetitive and aversive memory in Drosophila. Combining colours and odours improved memory performance, even when each sensory modality was tested alone. Temporal control of neuronal function revealed visually-selective mushroom body Kenyon Cells (KCs) to be required for enhancement of visual and olfactory memory recall after multisensory training. Synapse-level connectomics suggests that valence-relevant dopaminergic reinforcement could permit the KC-spanning serotonergic DPM neurons to bridge between previously modality-selective KC streams. Consistent with this model, DPM transmission is uniquely required during multisensory memory formation and for enhanced expression of olfactory memory afterwards. In addition, signalling via the DopR1 dopamine receptor is required in APL neurons, suggesting that reinforcing dopamine could locally release GABA-ergic inhibition to permit bridging microcircuits to function. Cross-modal binding thereby expands the KCs representing the olfactory memory engram into those representing the colour. We propose that broadening of the engram improves memory performance after multisensory learning and permits a single sensory feature to retrieve the memory of the multimodal experience.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Multisensory training in flies recruits visual KCs into the olfactory engram via DPM bridging and APL dopamine signaling, but the expansion is inferred from necessity and anatomy rather than shown directly in the same animals.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that pairing color with odor during training pulls visually selective Kenyon cells into the olfactory memory engram. This depends on DPM neuron output during formation and DopR1 signaling in APL cells, which the authors link to reduced inhibition allowing cross-stream bridging. The result is better memory performance and the ability for one modality to retrieve the full experience.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript demonstrates multisensory appetitive and aversive memory in Drosophila, showing that pairing colors with odors improves performance even when each modality is tested alone. It reports that visually selective mushroom body Kenyon cells (KCs) are required for the enhancement of both visual and olfactory recall after multisensory training. Using synapse-level connectomics, the authors propose that dopaminergic reinforcement allows DPM neurons to bridge previously modality-selective KC streams, with supporting evidence from the unique requirement for DPM transmission during multisensory formation and for enhanced olfactory expression afterward, plus DopR1 signaling in APL neurons. The central conclusion is that cross-modal binding expands the olfactory memory engram to include visual KCs, thereby improving performance and enabling single-feature retrieval of the multimodal experience.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work supplies a circuit-level account of how multisensory experience broadens memory engrams in the mushroom body, with direct implications for object recognition and memory robustness. Strengths include convergent evidence from behavioral enhancement, temporally controlled silencing, connectomics-based anatomical mapping, and receptor-specific manipulations, plus the distinction between unisensory and multisensory requirements. These elements provide a falsifiable model for engram expansion that could be tested across species.

major comments (2)

[Results (KC silencing and connectomics)] Results section on visual KC silencing: the claim that multisensory training recruits visually selective KCs into the olfactory engram rests on their necessity for enhanced olfactory recall after color+odor training together with connectomics showing DPM axons spanning KC streams. No experiment directly visualizes or quantifies increased KC co-activation or engram overlap for both modalities within the same animals; the expansion therefore remains inferred rather than observed, which is load-bearing for the central recruitment claim.
[Results (DPM and APL signaling)] Results section on DPM/APL manipulations: temporal control experiments establish that DPM transmission and DopR1 signaling in APL are required specifically after multisensory (not unisensory) training, yet the manuscript does not report additional controls for non-specific changes in KC excitability or off-target genetic-tool effects that might manifest only under multisensory conditions. This leaves open alternative explanations for the observed KC requirement.

minor comments (3)

[Methods] Methods: sample sizes, exact statistical tests, power calculations, and exclusion criteria are not detailed for the behavioral, silencing, and imaging experiments; these must be supplied to permit evaluation of data robustness.
[Figures] Figure legends: the timing of neuronal silencing (training vs. testing phases) and any controls for off-target effects should be stated more explicitly to avoid ambiguity in interpreting the temporal specificity results.
[Discussion] Discussion: a brief comparison to prior KC engram allocation studies would clarify how the proposed bridging mechanism extends existing models.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive major comments, which highlight important aspects of our claims. We address each point below with clarifications based on the existing data and indicate revisions to improve clarity and address potential alternative interpretations.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Results section on visual KC silencing: the claim that multisensory training recruits visually selective KCs into the olfactory engram rests on their necessity for enhanced olfactory recall after color+odor training together with connectomics showing DPM axons spanning KC streams. No experiment directly visualizes or quantifies increased KC co-activation or engram overlap for both modalities within the same animals; the expansion therefore remains inferred rather than observed, which is load-bearing for the central recruitment claim.

Authors: We agree that the recruitment of visual KCs into the olfactory engram is inferred from functional necessity and anatomical data rather than directly observed via co-activation imaging in the same animals. The key evidence is that silencing visually selective KCs impairs the multisensory-induced enhancement of olfactory recall, an effect absent after unisensory olfactory training alone. This training-specific requirement, together with connectomics showing DPM axons capable of spanning modality-selective KC streams, supports the model of engram broadening. We will revise the results and discussion sections to explicitly state that the expansion is inferred from these convergent behavioral and anatomical findings, and we will add a paragraph outlining the limitation and proposing future experiments (e.g., activity-dependent labeling or dual-color imaging) to directly quantify overlap. revision: partial
Referee: Results section on DPM/APL manipulations: temporal control experiments establish that DPM transmission and DopR1 signaling in APL are required specifically after multisensory (not unisensory) training, yet the manuscript does not report additional controls for non-specific changes in KC excitability or off-target genetic-tool effects that might manifest only under multisensory conditions. This leaves open alternative explanations for the observed KC requirement.

Authors: The existing data already incorporate a critical internal control: the DPM and DopR1-APL requirements are absent after unisensory training, which would be expected to show similar non-specific effects on KC excitability or tool off-target actions if those were the underlying cause. This training-paradigm specificity argues strongly against general changes in KC function. To further address the concern, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the revised results/discussion (and supplementary figures if relevant data exist) explicitly discussing controls for genetic-tool specificity, including any available measurements of baseline KC activity or excitability, and reiterating the differential requirements between multisensory and unisensory conditions as evidence against non-specific explanations. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved

Direct visualization or quantification of increased KC co-activation or engram overlap for both modalities within the same animals is not present in the current study and would require new imaging experiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical claims rest on interventional experiments and anatomical mapping

full rationale

The manuscript contains no mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or first-principles predictions that could reduce to their own inputs by construction. All load-bearing steps are direct experimental interventions (behavioral assays, temporal neuronal silencing, receptor knockdowns) plus anatomical connectomics data used to generate a testable model rather than to define the result. The proposed engram-expansion model is explicitly labeled as a proposal consistent with the data, not a closed logical loop. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked to force conclusions. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained through falsifiable empirical evidence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard experimental assumptions in fly neuroscience rather than mathematical derivations. No free parameters are introduced because the work is not a modeling study. No new entities are postulated beyond the known cell types already studied in the field.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Temporal control of neuronal function accurately identifies cells required for memory enhancement without major off-target effects
Invoked to conclude that visually-selective KCs are necessary for the observed memory improvement after multisensory training.
domain assumption Synapse-level connectomics data reliably indicate functional bridging between KC streams by DPM neurons
Used to propose the mechanism by which dopaminergic reinforcement permits cross-modal binding.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5557 in / 1554 out tokens · 50779 ms · 2026-05-07T06:40:48.583828+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references

[1]

E., Stanford, T

Stein, B. E., Stanford, T. R. & Rowland, B. A. Development of multisensory integration from the perspective of the individual neuron. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 15, 520–535 (2014)

2014
[2]

& Guo, A

Guo, J. & Guo, A. Crossmodal interactions between olfactory and visual learning. Science. 309, 307–310 (2005)

2005
[3]

& Seitz, A

Shams, L. & Seitz, A. R. Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends Cogn. Sci. 12, 411–417 (2008)

2008
[4]

R., Deangelis, G

Fetsch, C. R., Deangelis, G. C. & Angelaki, D. E. Bridging the gap between theories of sensory cue integration and the physiology of multisensory neurons. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 429–442 (2013)

2013
[5]

Thiagarajan, D. et al. Aversive Bimodal Associations Differently Impact Visual and Olfactory Memory Performance in Drosophila. iScience 25, 105485 (2022)

2022
[6]

Ghazanfar, A. A. & Schroeder, C. E. Is neocortex essentially multisensory? Trends Cogn. Sci. 10, 278–285 (2006)

2006
[7]

& Noesselt, T

Driver, J. & Noesselt, T. Multisensory Interplay Reveals Crossmodal Influences on ‘Sensory-Specific’ Brain Regions, Neural Responses, and Judgments. Neuron 57, 11–23 (2008)

2008
[8]

von Kriegstein, K. et al. Simulation of talking faces in the human brain improves auditory speech recognition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105, 6747–6752 (2008)

2008
[9]

J., Maess, B

Schall, S., Kiebel, S. J., Maess, B. & Von Kriegstein, K. Early auditory sensory processing of voices is facilitated by visual mechanisms. Neuroimage 77, 237–245 (2013)

2013
[10]

& Fontanini, A

Vincis, R. & Fontanini, A. Associative learning changes cross-modal representations in the gustatory cortex. Elife 5, 1–24 (2016)

2016
[11]

Knöpfel, T. et al. Audio-visual experience strengthens multisensory assemblies in adult mouse visual cortex. Nat. Commun. 10, (2019)

2019
[12]

Han, X., Xu, J., Chang, S., Keniston, L. & Yu, L. Multisensory-Guided Associative Learning Enhances Multisensory Representation in Primary Auditory Cortex. Cereb. Cortex 32, 1040–1054 (2022)

2022
[14]

Li, F. et al. The connectome of the adult Drosophila mushroom body provides insights into function. Elife 9, 1–217 (2020)

2020
[15]

Owald, D. et al. Activity of Defined Mushroom Body Output Neurons Underlies Learned Olfactory Behavior in Drosophila. Neuron 86, 417–427 (2015)

2015
[16]

Hige, T. et al. Heterosynaptic Plasticity Underlies Aversive Olfactory Learning in 9 Drosophila Article Heterosynaptic Plasticity Underlies Aversive Olfactory Learning in Drosophila. Neuron 88, 985–998 (2015)

2015
[19]

Vogt, K. et al. Direct neural pathways convey distinct visual information to drosophila mushroom bodies. Elife 5, 1–13 (2016)

2016
[20]

Vogt, K. et al. Shared mushroom body circuits underlie visual and olfactory memories in Drosophila. Elife 3, e02395 (2014)

2014
[22]

Perisse, E. et al. Different Kenyon Cell Populations Drive Learned Approach and Avoidance in Drosophila. Neuron 79, 945–956 (2013)

2013
[23]

Yang, H. H. H. et al. Subcellular Imaging of Voltage and Calcium Signals Reveals Neural Processing In Vivo. Cell 166, 245–257 (2016)

2016
[24]

Burke, C. J. et al. Layered reward signalling through octopamine and dopamine in Drosophila. Nature 492, 433–437 (2012)

2012
[25]

Liu, C. et al. A subset of dopamine neurons signals reward for odour memory in Drosophila. Nature 488, 512–516 (2012)

2012
[26]

Schwaerzel, M. et al. Dopamine and octopamine differentiate between aversive and appetitive olfactory memories in Drosophila. J. Neurosci. 23, 10495–502 (2003)

2003
[27]

Claridge-Chang, A. et al. Writing Memories with Light-Addressable Reinforcement Circuitry. Cell 139, 405–415 (2009)

2009
[28]

Aso, Y. et al. Three Dopamine Pathways Induce Aversive Odor Memories with Different Stability. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002768 (2012)

2012
[29]

Krashes, M. J. et al. A Neural Circuit Mechanism Integrating Motivational State with Memory Expression in Drosophila. Cell 139, 416–427 (2009)

2009
[30]

Plaçais, P. Y. & Preat, T. To favor survival under food shortage, the brain disables costly memory. Science. 339, 440–442 (2013)

2013
[31]

Neural Plasticity : Dopamine Tunes the Mushroom Body Output Network

Waddell, S. Neural Plasticity : Dopamine Tunes the Mushroom Body Output Network. Curr. Biol. 26, R109–R112 (2016)

2016
[32]

Scheffer, L. K. et al. A connectome and analysis of the adult drosophila central brain. Elife 9, 1–74 (2020)

2020
[33]

Plaza, S. M. et al. neuPrint: An open access tool for EM connectomics. Front. Neuroinform. 16, (2022). 10

2022
[34]

E., Davidson, A

Manoim, J. E., Davidson, A. M., Weiss, S., Hige, T. & Parnas, M. Lateral axonal modulation is required for stimulus-specific olfactory conditioning in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 32, 4438-4450.e5 (2022)

2022
[35]

D., Kitamoto, T., Kaiser, K

Waddell, S., Armstrong, J. D., Kitamoto, T., Kaiser, K. & Quinn, W. G. The amnesiac Gene Product Is Expressed in Two Neurons in the Drosophila Brain that Are Critical for Memory. Cell 103, 805–813 (2000)

2000
[36]

C., Srivatsan, A., Waddell, S

Yu, D., Keene, A. C., Srivatsan, A., Waddell, S. & Davis, R. L. Drosophila DPM neurons form a delayed and branch-specific memory trace after olfactory classical conditioning. Cell 123, 945–957 (2005)

2005
[37]

ya et al

Takemura, S. ya et al. A connectome of a learning and memory center in the adult Drosophila brain. Elife 6, 1–43 (2017)

2017
[38]

& Davis, R

Liu, X. & Davis, R. L. The GABAergic anterior paired lateral neuron suppresses and is suppressed by olfactory learning. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 53–59 (2009)

2009
[39]

A., Suárez-Grimalt, R., Vrontou, E

Amin, H., Apostolopoulou, A. A., Suárez-Grimalt, R., Vrontou, E. & Lin, A. C. Localized inhibition in the drosophila mushroom body. Elife 9, 1–74 (2020)

2020
[40]

Zhou, M. et al. Suppression of GABAergic neurons through D2-like receptor secures efficient conditioning in Drosophila aversive olfactory learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 116, 5118–5125 (2019)

2019
[41]

Aso, Y. et al. Nitric oxide acts as a cotransmitter in a subset of dopaminergic neurons to diversify memory dynamics. Elife 8, 1–33 (2019)

2019
[42]

Hearn, M. G. et al. A Drosophila dopamine 2-like receptor: Molecular characterization and identification of multiple alternatively spliced variants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99, 14554–14559 (2002)

2002
[43]

& Martin, J

Lark, A., Kitamoto, T. & Martin, J. R. Modulation of neuronal activity in the Drosophila mushroom body by DopEcR, a unique dual receptor for ecdysone and dopamine. Biochim. Biophys. Acta - Mol. Cell Res. 1864, 1578–1588 (2017)

2017
[45]

C., Krashes, M

Keene, A. C., Krashes, M. J., Leung, B., Bernard, J. A. & Waddell, S. Drosophila Dorsal Paired Medial Neurons Provide a General Mechanism for Memory Consolidation. Curr. Biol. 16, 1524–1530 (2006)

2006
[46]

Trannoy, S., Redt-Clouet, C., Dura, J. M. & Preat, T. Parallel processing of appetitive short- and long-term memories in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 21, 1647–1653 (2011)

2011
[47]

E., Le, P

McGuire, S. E., Le, P. T. & Davis, R. L. The role of Drosophila mushroom body signaling in olfactory memory. Science. 293, 1330–1333 (2001)

2001
[48]

& Tully, T

Dubnau, J., Grady, L., Kitamoto, T. & Tully, T. Disruption of neurotransmission in Drosophila mushroom body blocks retrieval but not acquisition of memory. Nature 11 411, 476–480 (2001)

2001
[49]

Handler, A. et al. Distinct Dopamine Receptor Pathways Underlie the Temporal Sensitivity of Associative Learning. Cell 178, 60–75 (2019)

2019
[50]

& Davis, R

Cervantes-Sandoval, I. & Davis, R. L. Distinct Traces for Appetitive versus Aversive Olfactory Memories in DPM Neurons of Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 22, 1247–1252 (2012)

2012
[51]

Nichols, D. E. & Nichols, C. D. Serotonin receptors. Chem. Rev. 108, 1614–1641 (2008)

2008
[52]

Barakat, B., Seitz, A. R. & Shams, L. Visual rhythm perception improves through auditory but not visual training. Curr. Biol. 25, R60–R61 (2015)

2015
[53]

Zeng, J. et al. Local 5-HT signaling bi-directionally regulates the coincidence time window for associative learning. Neuron 1–18 (2023)

2023
[54]

Keene, A. C. et al. Diverse odor-conditioned memories require uniquely timed dorsal paired medial neuron output. Neuron 44, 521–533 (2004)

2004
[55]

Jacob, P. F. et al. Prior experience conditionally inhibits the expression of new learning in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 31, 3490-3503.e3 (2021)

2021
[56]

Hunsaker, M. R. & Kesner, R. P. The operation of pattern separation and pattern completion processes associated with different attributes or domains of memory. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 37, 36–58 (2013)

2013
[57]

J., Simon, D

Cascio, C. J., Simon, D. M., Bryant, L. K., DiCarlo, G. & Wallace, M. T. Neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders affecting multisensory processes. Multisensory Perception: From Laboratory to Clinic (Elsevier Inc., 2019)

2019
[58]

L., Anacker, A

Muller, C. L., Anacker, A. M. J. & Veenstra-VanderWeele, J. The serotonin system in autism spectrum disorder: From biomarker to animal models. Neuroscience 321, 24–41 (2016)

2016
[59]

López-Giménez, J. F. & González-Maeso, J. Hallucinogens and Serotonin 5-HT2A Receptor-Mediated Signaling Pathways. in Brain Imaging in Behavioral Neuroscience 45–73 (2017)

2017
[60]

Aso, Y. et al. Mushroom body output neurons encode valence and guide memory-based action selection in Drosophila. Elife 3, e04580 (2014)

2014
[61]

Aso, Y. et al. The neuronal architecture of the mushroom body provides a logic for associative learning. Elife 3, e04577 (2014)

2014
[62]

Zhu, S. et al. Gradients of the Drosophila Chinmo BTB-Zinc Finger Protein Govern Neuronal Temporal Identity. Cell 127, 409–422 (2006)

2006
[63]

A., Suárez-Grimalt, R., Vrontou, E

Amin, H., Apostolopoulou, A. A., Suárez-Grimalt, R., Vrontou, E. & Lin, A. C. Localized inhibition in the Drosophila mushroom body. Elife 9, 1–74 (2020)

2020
[64]

Lee, P.-T. T. et al. Serotonin-mushroom body circuit modulating the formation of anesthesia-resistant memory in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108, 13794– 12 13799 (2011)

2011
[65]

Conditional modification of behavior in Drosophila by targeted expression of a temperature-sensitive shibire allele in defined neurons

Kitamoto, T. Conditional modification of behavior in Drosophila by targeted expression of a temperature-sensitive shibire allele in defined neurons. J. Neurobiol. 47, 81–92 (2001)

2001
[66]

E., Le, P

McGuire, S. E., Le, P. T., Osborn, A. J., Matsumoto, K. & Davis, R. L. Spatiotemporal Rescue of Memory Dysfunction in Drosophila. Science. 302, 1765–1768 (2003)

2003
[67]

T., McBride, E., Jackson, F

Draper, I., Kurshan, P. T., McBride, E., Jackson, F. R. & Kopin, A. S. Locomotor activity is regulated by D2-like receptors in Drosophila: An anatomic and functional analysis. Dev. Neurobiol. 67, 378–393 (2007)

2007
[68]

Krashes, M. J. & Waddell, S. Rapid Consolidation to a radish and Protein Synthesis-Dependent Long-Term Memory after Single-Session Appetitive Olfactory Conditioning in Drosophila. J. Neurosci. 28, 3103–3113 (2008)

2008
[69]

& Quinn, W

Tully, T. & Quinn, W. G. Classical conditioning and retention in normal and mutant Drosophila melanogaster. J. Comp. Physiol. A. 157, 263–277 (1985)

1985
[70]

Perisse, E. et al. Aversive Learning and Appetitive Motivation Toggle Feed-Forward Inhibition in the Drosophila Mushroom Body. Neuron 90, 1086–1099 (2016)

2016
[71]

G., Harris, W

Quinn, W. G., Harris, W. A. & Benzer, S. Conditioned behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 71, 708–12 (1974)

1974
[72]

Bates, A. S. et al. The natverse, a versatile toolbox for combining and analysing neuroanatomical data. Elife 9, 1–35 (2020)

2020
[73]

Scheffer, L. K. et al. A connectome and analysis of the adult Drosophila central brain. Elife 9, 1–74 (2020)

2020
[74]

Plaza, S. M. et al. neuPrint: An open access tool for EM connectomics. Front. Neuroinform. 16, (2022). 13 Figure Legends Figure 1 with one supplement. Multisensory learning enhances memory performance. a. Left, Apparatus for multisensory training and testing. Right, experimental timeline. b. Protocols. Green and blue squares represent colours, light and d...

2022
[75]

ALL", max_dist =

Visual retrieval (VR): flies were trained as in the Congruent (C) protocol , but only colours (XColour and YColour) were presented as the choice at test. The sequential learning experiments depicted in Figure 5c and 5d used aversive or appetitive Congruent (C) multisensory training followed by unisensory appetitive or aversive Olfactory (O) learning, then...

2017