ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2020
Parameters of Memory Reconsolidation: Learning Mode Influences Likelihood of Memory Modification.
Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
When previously consolidated hippocampally dependent memory traces are reactivated they enter a vulnerable state in which they can be altered with new information, after which they must be re-consolidated in order to restabilize the trace. The existing body of literature on episodic reconsolidation largely focuses on the when and how of successful memory reactivation. What remains poorly understood is how the nature of newly presented information affects the likelihood of a vulnerable episodic memory being altered. We used our episodic memory reconsolidation paradigm to investigate if the intention to encode impacts what subsequently becomes attributed to an older, reactivated memory. Participants learned two lists of objects separated by 48 h. We integrated a modified item-list directed-forgetting paradigm into the encoding of the second object list by cueing participants to learn some of the objects intentionally (intentional learning), while other objects were presented without a cue (incidental learning). Under conditions of memory reactivation, subjects showed equal rates of memory modification for intentionally- and incidentally-learned objects. However, in the absence of reactivation we observed high misattribution rates of incidentally-learned objects. We consider two interpretations of these data, with contrasting implications for understanding the conditions that influence memory malleability, and suggest further work that should help decide between them.
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.