期刊
LEARNING & MEMORY
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 491-497出版社
COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/lm.241006
关键词
-
资金
- NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH033881] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
- NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH033881] Funding Source: Medline
- PHS HHS [33881] Funding Source: Medline
For at least 40 years, there has been a recurring argument concerning the nature of experimental amnesia, with one side arguing that amnesic treatments interfere with the formation of enduring memories and the other side arguing that these treatments interfere with the expression of memories that were effectively encoded. The argument appears to stem from a combination of (1) unclear definitions and (2) real differences in the theoretical vantages that underlie the interpretation of relevant data. Here we speak to how the field might avoid arguments that are definitional in nature and how various hypotheses fare in light of published data. Existing but often overlooked data favor very rapid (milliseconds) synaptic consolidation, with experimental amnesia reflecting, at least in part, deficits in retrieval rather than in the initial storage of information.
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。
推荐
暂无数据