Shomrat, T. & Levin, M. (2013). Journal of Experimental Biology.
Not read. The summary is drawn from the abstract or from what the work is standardly cited for. A reading should check it first.
Why this is here
Memory persisting through the loss and regrowth of the brain itself, the regeneration counterpart of metamorphosis. For QUESTION-302.
Read in its place
The work cannot be read here, so the record holds it at second hand.
Levin’s post on The Node (NOTE-1283), signed by both authors, announces Shomrat and Levin 2013. It gives the design in outline: an automated device training 12 worms at a time around the clock; a chamber with a laser-etched floor; familiarity measured by readiness to eat liver there rather than explore; recognition after complete head removal and regeneration, given “a brief refresher”. It gives the authors’ reading, memory stored outside the brain and imprinted on the new one. The 2015 perspective (LIT-1707) restates less: only that the device’s “initial study confirmed the ability of worms to recognize a surface etch pattern in a place learning task, and the persistence of this information across head regeneration”, plus the device’s round-the-clock training and objective scoring. It mentions neither the refresher nor the feeding measure. Its reference entry gives the paper as “J Exp Biol 2013; 216: 3799–810” with “planarians” in the title; Crossref has “planaria” and no volume or pages. Missing still: every number; the training schedule; how long memory lasted in intact worms; which fragment regenerated and how long it took; the statistics; and whether the refresher alone produced the effect in naive worms.