4.0 Article

Changes in context-specificity during memory reconsolidation: Selective effects of hippocampal lesions

期刊

LEARNING & MEMORY
卷 16, 期 11, 页码 722-729

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/lm.1447209

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

After acquisition, memories associated with contextual fear conditioning pass through a labile phase, in which they are vulnerable to hippocampal lesions, to a more stable state, via consolidation, in which they engage extrahippocampal structures and are resistant to such disruption. The process is accompanied by changes in the form of the memory from being context-specific to context-general. However, when revived by a reminder, stable memories once again become labile and susceptible to hippocampal disruption, and memory reconsolidation is needed to stabilize them. This study addressed two questions with respect to this reconsolidation phenomenon: (1) How do reminders reinstate a hippocampally dependent memory trace? (2) As the memory changes from a stable to a labile state after a reminder, does its form remain invariant, or does it also change? Using contextual manipulations at retrieval in a test of contextual fear conditioning, we showed that when the fear-conditioning environment served as a reminder, the reinstated memory regained its context specificity and, as a result, became vulnerable again to the effects of hippocampal lesions. By comparison, exposure to a different environment during the reminder session reinstated a version of the original memory that was dependent primarily on general features of the original context and, consequently, was less affected by hippocampal lesions. These findings, which relate loss of reactivated memories after hippocampal destruction (or inactivation) to changes in memory representation, are interpreted as consistent with the transformation hypothesis of memory processing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据