Cargando…

Behavioural reconsolidation interference not observed in a within-subjects design

Studies of reconsolidation interference posit that reactivation of a previously consolidated memory via a reminder brings it into an active, labile state, leaving it open for potential manipulation. If interfered with, this may disrupt the original memory trace. While evidence for pharmacological re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Batashvili, Michael, Sheaffer, Rona, Katz, Maya, Doron, Yoav, Kempler, Noam, Levy, Daniel A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9553081/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36220898
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41539-022-00143-w
_version_ 1784806390294904832
author Batashvili, Michael
Sheaffer, Rona
Katz, Maya
Doron, Yoav
Kempler, Noam
Levy, Daniel A.
author_facet Batashvili, Michael
Sheaffer, Rona
Katz, Maya
Doron, Yoav
Kempler, Noam
Levy, Daniel A.
author_sort Batashvili, Michael
collection PubMed
description Studies of reconsolidation interference posit that reactivation of a previously consolidated memory via a reminder brings it into an active, labile state, leaving it open for potential manipulation. If interfered with, this may disrupt the original memory trace. While evidence for pharmacological reconsolidation interference is widespread, it remains unclear whether behavioural interference using the presentation of competing information can engender it, especially in declarative memory. Almost all previous studies in this area have employed between-subjects designs, in which there are potential confounds, such as different retrieval strategies for the multiple conditions. In the current studies, within-subjects paradigms were applied to test the effects of reconsolidation interference on associative recognition and free recall. In Experiment 1, participants engaged in pair-associate learning of unrelated object pictures on Day 1, and after a reminder, interference, reminder + interference, or no manipulation (control) on Day 2, were tested on associative recognition of these pairs on Day 3. In Experiments 2 and 3, memoranda were short stories studied on Day 1. On Day 2, stories were assigned to either control, reminder, interference by alternative stories, or reminder + interference conditions. On Day 3 participants recalled the Day 1 stories, and answered yes/no recognition questions. Reminders improved subsequent memory, while interference was effective in reducing retrieval in differing degrees across the experiments. Importantly, the reminder + interference condition was no more effective in impairing retrieval than the interference-alone condition, contrary to the prediction of the behavioural reconsolidation-interference approach.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9553081
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95530812022-10-12 Behavioural reconsolidation interference not observed in a within-subjects design Batashvili, Michael Sheaffer, Rona Katz, Maya Doron, Yoav Kempler, Noam Levy, Daniel A. NPJ Sci Learn Article Studies of reconsolidation interference posit that reactivation of a previously consolidated memory via a reminder brings it into an active, labile state, leaving it open for potential manipulation. If interfered with, this may disrupt the original memory trace. While evidence for pharmacological reconsolidation interference is widespread, it remains unclear whether behavioural interference using the presentation of competing information can engender it, especially in declarative memory. Almost all previous studies in this area have employed between-subjects designs, in which there are potential confounds, such as different retrieval strategies for the multiple conditions. In the current studies, within-subjects paradigms were applied to test the effects of reconsolidation interference on associative recognition and free recall. In Experiment 1, participants engaged in pair-associate learning of unrelated object pictures on Day 1, and after a reminder, interference, reminder + interference, or no manipulation (control) on Day 2, were tested on associative recognition of these pairs on Day 3. In Experiments 2 and 3, memoranda were short stories studied on Day 1. On Day 2, stories were assigned to either control, reminder, interference by alternative stories, or reminder + interference conditions. On Day 3 participants recalled the Day 1 stories, and answered yes/no recognition questions. Reminders improved subsequent memory, while interference was effective in reducing retrieval in differing degrees across the experiments. Importantly, the reminder + interference condition was no more effective in impairing retrieval than the interference-alone condition, contrary to the prediction of the behavioural reconsolidation-interference approach. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-10-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9553081/ /pubmed/36220898 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41539-022-00143-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Batashvili, Michael
Sheaffer, Rona
Katz, Maya
Doron, Yoav
Kempler, Noam
Levy, Daniel A.
Behavioural reconsolidation interference not observed in a within-subjects design
title Behavioural reconsolidation interference not observed in a within-subjects design
title_full Behavioural reconsolidation interference not observed in a within-subjects design
title_fullStr Behavioural reconsolidation interference not observed in a within-subjects design
title_full_unstemmed Behavioural reconsolidation interference not observed in a within-subjects design
title_short Behavioural reconsolidation interference not observed in a within-subjects design
title_sort behavioural reconsolidation interference not observed in a within-subjects design
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9553081/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36220898
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41539-022-00143-w
work_keys_str_mv AT batashvilimichael behaviouralreconsolidationinterferencenotobservedinawithinsubjectsdesign
AT sheafferrona behaviouralreconsolidationinterferencenotobservedinawithinsubjectsdesign
AT katzmaya behaviouralreconsolidationinterferencenotobservedinawithinsubjectsdesign
AT doronyoav behaviouralreconsolidationinterferencenotobservedinawithinsubjectsdesign
AT kemplernoam behaviouralreconsolidationinterferencenotobservedinawithinsubjectsdesign
AT levydaniela behaviouralreconsolidationinterferencenotobservedinawithinsubjectsdesign