Trial reportLearning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.)2017
Intrusions in episodic memory: reconsolidation or interference?
Trial report in Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The time window of reconsolidation: A replication.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2022Article
- 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 · 2021Article
- Contextual prediction errors reorganize naturalistic episodic memories in time.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Post-retrieval Distortions of Self-Referential Negative Memory: Valence Consistency Enhances Gist-Directed False, While Non-negative Interference Generates More Intrusive Updates.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Is Reconsolidation a General Property of Memory?Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Review
- Mechanisms of Memory Updating: State Dependency vs. Reconsolidation.Journal of cognition · 2021Article
- Surprise and destabilize: prediction error influences episodic memory reconsolidation.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2018Article
- Memory Integration as a Challenge to the Consolidation/Reconsolidation Hypothesis: Similarities, Differences and Perspectives.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It would be profoundly important if reconsolidation research in animals and other memory domains generalized to human episodic memory. A 3-d-list-discrimination procedure, based on free recall of objects, with a contextual reminder cue (the testing room), has been thought to demonstrate reconsolidation of human episodic memory (as noted in a previous study). Our goal was to replicate the central result, a high intrusion rate during recall of the target list, and evaluate the reconsolidation account relative to an alternative account, based on state-dependent learning and interference. First, replication was not straightforward (Experiment 1). Second, using a very unique, highly salient context (Experiment 2), the method produced a qualitative replication, but it was small in magnitude. A critical assumption of the reconsolidation account, that the target list is reactivated and destabilized during re-exposure to the study context, was not supported (Experiment 3). Although troubling for the reconsolidation account, the findings can be easily accommodated by an alternative account that does not assume additional neurobiological processes underlying the destabilization of consolidated memories, instead explaining intrusion rates simply in terms of well-established cognitive effects, such as item-to-context binding and interference during retrieval.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.