Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33395388›Full record

ArticleeLife2021

Reconsidering the evidence for learning in single cells.

Samuel J Gershman, Petra Em Balbi, C Randy Gallistel, Jeremy Gunawardena

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Continual decision-making dynamics across biological organisms.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  3. Reductionism in Engram Neuroscience.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Trainable computation in molecular networks.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The "plant neurobiology" revolution.Plant signaling & behavior · 2024
    Review
  15. Minimal motifs for habituating systems.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Samuel J GershmanDepartment of Psychology and Center for Brain Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6546-3298
Petra Em BalbiDepartment of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.
C Randy GallistelRutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University at New Brunswick, New Brunswick, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4860-5637
Jeremy GunawardenaDepartment of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7280-1152

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The question of whether single cells can learn led to much debate in the early 20th century. The view prevailed that they were capable of non-associative learning but not of associative learning, such as Pavlovian conditioning. Experiments indicating the contrary were considered either non-reproducible or subject to more acceptable interpretations. Recent developments suggest that the time is right to reconsider this consensus. We exhume the experiments of Beatrice Gelber on Pavlovian conditioning in the ciliate

Indexed as

Cell Physiological PhenomenaLearningSingle-Cell AnalysisConditioning, Classicalcomputational biologylearningneuroscienceParameciumPavlovian conditioningsingle cellsystems biology

Identifiers

PMID33395388
PMCPMC7781593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.