Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21850268›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2011

Repeated labilization-reconsolidation processes strengthen declarative memory in humans.

Cecilia Forcato, María L C Rodríguez, María E Pedreira

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Episodic memory enhancement versus impairment is determined by contextual similarity across events.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Is Reconsolidation a General Property of Memory?Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Postretrieval Relearning Strengthens Hippocampal Memories via Destabilization and Reconsolidation.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Cecilia ForcatoLaboratorio de Neurobiología de la Memoria, Departamento de Fisiología, Biología Molecular y Celular, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, IFIBYNE-CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
María L C Rodríguez
María E Pedreira

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The idea that memories are immutable after consolidation has been challenged. Several reports have shown that after the presentation of a specific reminder, reactivated old memories become labile and again susceptible to amnesic agents. Such vulnerability diminishes with the progress of time and implies a re-stabilization phase, usually referred to as reconsolidation. To date, the main findings describe the mechanisms associated with the labilization-reconsolidation process, but little is known about its functionality from a biological standpoint. Indeed, two functions have been proposed. One suggests that destabilization of the original memory after the reminder allows the integration of new information into the background of the original memory (memory updating), and the other suggests that the labilization-reconsolidation process strengthens the original memory (memory strengthening). We have previously reported the reconsolidation of human declarative memories, demonstrating memory updating in the framework of reconsolidation. Here we deal with the strengthening function attributed to the reconsolidation process. We triggered labilization-reconsolidation processes successively by repeated presentations of the proper reminder. Participants learned an association between five cue-syllables and their respective response-syllables. Twenty-four hours later, the paired-associate verbal memory was labilized by exposing the subjects to one, two or four reminders. The List-memory was evaluated on Day 3 showing that the memory was improved when at least a second reminder was presented in the time window of the first labilization-reconsolidation process prompted by the earlier reminder. However, the improvement effect was revealed on Day 3, only when at least two reminders were presented on Day 2 and not as a consequence of only retrieval. Therefore, we propose central concepts for the reconsolidation process, emphasizing its biological role and the parametrical constrains for this function to be operative.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansMaleMemoryMental RecallRetention, PsychologyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID21850268
PMCPMC3151295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.