Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28288205›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Long-term effects of interference on short-term memory performance in the rat.

Mégane Missaire, Nicolas Fraize, Mickaël Antoine Joseph, Al Mahdy Hamieh, Régis Parmentier, Aline Marighetto, Paul Antoine Salin, Gaël Malleret

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Mégane MissaireForgetting and Cortical Dynamics Team, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center (CRNL), University Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Nicolas FraizeForgetting and Cortical Dynamics Team, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center (CRNL), University Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Mickaël Antoine JosephForgetting and Cortical Dynamics Team, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center (CRNL), University Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Al Mahdy HamiehForgetting and Cortical Dynamics Team, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center (CRNL), University Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Régis ParmentierForgetting and Cortical Dynamics Team, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center (CRNL), University Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Aline MarighettoNeurocentre Magendie, INSERM U1215, Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Paul Antoine SalinForgetting and Cortical Dynamics Team, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center (CRNL), University Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Gaël MalleretForgetting and Cortical Dynamics Team, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center (CRNL), University Lyon 1, Lyon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A distinction has always been made between long-term and short-term memory (also now called working memory, WM). The obvious difference between these two kinds of memory concerns the duration of information storage: information is supposedly transiently stored in WM while it is considered durably consolidated into long-term memory. It is well acknowledged that the content of WM is erased and reset after a short time, to prevent irrelevant information from proactively interfering with newly stored information. In the present study, we used typical WM radial maze tasks to question the brief lifespan of spatial WM content in rodents. Groups of rats were submitted to one of two different WM tasks in a radial maze: a WM task involving the repetitive presentation of a same pair of arms expected to induce a high level of proactive interference (PI) (HIWM task), or a task using a different pair in each trial expected to induce a low level of PI (LIWM task). Performance was effectively lower in the HIWM group than in LIWM in the final trial of each training session, indicative of a "within-session/short-term" PI effect. However, we also observed a different "between-session/long-term" PI effect between the two groups: while performance of LIWM trained rats remained stable over days, the performance of HIWM rats dropped after 10 days of training, and this impairment was visible from the very first trial of the day, hence not attributable to within-session PI. We also showed that a 24 hour-gap across training sessions known to allow consolidation processes to unfold, was a necessary and sufficient condition for the long-term PI effect to occur. These findings suggest that in the HIWM task, WM content was not entirely reset between training sessions and that, in specific conditions, WM content can outlast its purpose by being stored more permanently, generating a long-term deleterious effect of PI. The alternative explanation is that WM content could be transferred and stored more permanently in an intermediary form or memory between WM and long-term memory.

Indexed as

Memory, Long-TermMemory, Short-TermAnimalsProactive InhibitionRats

Identifiers

PMID28288205
PMCPMC5348021

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.