4.4 Article

Is good memory always a good thing? An early offset of infantile amnesia predicts anxiety-like behavior throughout development in rats

期刊

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
卷 135, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2020.103763

关键词

Development; Infantile amnesia; Anxiety; Probiotics; Fear; Memory

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP190102975, DP150104835]
  2. Australian Government Research Training Program scholarship
  3. Petre Foundation scholarship
  4. UNSW Research Excellence Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infants tend to forget experiences much more rapidly than older individuals, a phenomenon referred to as infantile amnesia. This robust, cross-species phenomenon is commonly used to examine memory development. However, in this set of experiments, we examined the novel hypothesis that the expression of infantile amnesia is related to resilience/vulnerability. We conditioned infant rats to associate a white noise with shock. Animals were tested for memory of the association similar to 1 week later. We found that infants that expressed better memory of the aversive association emitted more vocalizations (indicative of higher levels of distress) when separated from their mother earlier in infancy (Experiment 1). Better expression of memory in infancy also predicted higher levels of conditioned fear (Experiment 2) and anxiety-like behavior (in a light-dark box; Experiment 3) in adulthood. Furthermore, probiotic-treatment administered early in development reduced anxiety-like behavior in animals that exhibited good expression of memory for an aversive association learnt in infancy (Experiment 4). However, the same treatment was ineffective if administered in adulthood. Taken together, these results suggest that individual differences in infants' memory for an aversive association predict anxiety-like behavior throughout development, and that early administration of probiotics can reduce anxiety-like behavior in at-risk animals.

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

4.4
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