Fig. 3. Learning and memory for flies with intact vision. Males of the indicated genotype (all of which have normal eye pigmentation) were trained by exposure to a mated female for 1 hr and then immediately placed with an anesthetized virgin female. For sham training, flies of the same genotype were manipulated identically, except that no female was present in the chamber during training. All manipulations were performed at 25°C, 75% relative humidity.A, Conditioning in white light. Apparent learning was measured by calculating a courtship index (CI) for the first (CIi) and last (CIf) 10 min of the conditioning period. Data are expressed as the ratio of means,CIf/CIi ± SEM. For wild-type flies (Canton-S) this value is ∼0.5. Values >0.5 indicate defects in apparent learning, with a failure to decrease courtship during the training period. CIifor each genotype was Canton-S, 0.82 ± 0.23;UAS-ala/+, 0.71 ± 0.23; MJ85b, 0.79 ± 0.26; ala2/+, 0.71 ± 0.23;MJ85b; UAS-ala/+, 0.86 ± 0.18;CaMKII/+, 0.89 ± 0.19. B, Memory in white light. Memory was tested by measuring a CI for the initial 10 min of exposure to an anesthetized virgin female after training with a mated female (dark bars) or sham training (light bars). Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. C, Conditioning in dim red light. Learning was measured as in A, with the exception that all procedures were performed in dim red light. Apparent learning in dim red light was not significantly different from that measured in white light.CIi for each genotype was Canton-S, 0.56 ± 0.26; UAS-ala/+, 0.69 ± 0.21;MJ85b, 0.74 ± 0.23; ala2/+, 0.80 ± 0.17; MJ85b; UAS-ala/+, 0.71 ± 0.25;CaMKII/+, 0.82 ± 0.21. D, Memory in dim red light. Memory was assessed as in B, with the exception that training and testing were performed in dim red light.n ≥ 20 for all genotypes and conditions.