4.7 Article

Disrupting reconsolidation: memory erasure or blunting of emotional/motivational value?

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 44, 期 2, 页码 399-407

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41386-018-0082-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. [P01 DA031656]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When memories are retrieved they become labile, and subject to alteration by a process known as reconsolidation. Disruption of memory reconsolidation decreases the performance of learned responses, which is often attributed to erasure of the memory; in the case of Pavlovian learning, to a loss of the association between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US). However, an alternative interpretation is that disrupting reconsolidation does not erase memories, but blunts their emotional/motivational impact. It is difficult to parse the predictive vs. emotional/motivational value of CSs in non-human animals, but studies on variation in the form of conditioned responses (CRs) in a Pavlovian conditioned approach task suggest a way to do this. In this task a lever-CS paired with a food reward (US) acquires predictive value in all rats, but is attributed with emotional/motivational value to a greater extent in some rats (sign-trackers) than others (goal-trackers). We report that the post-retrieval administration of propranolol selectively attenuates a sign-tracking CR, and the associated neural activation of brain motive circuits, while having no effect on conditioned orienting behavior in sign-trackers, or on goal-tracking CRs evoked by either a lever-CS or a tone-CS. We conclude that the disruption of reconsolidation by post-retrieval propranolol degrades the emotional/motivational impact of the CS, required for sign-tracking, but leaves the CS-US association intact. The possibility that post-retrieval interventions can reduce the emotional/motivational aspects of memories, without actually erasing them, has important implications for treating maladaptive memories that contribute to some psychiatric disorders.

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

4.7
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