ArticleNPJ science of learning2022
Behavioural reconsolidation interference not observed in a within-subjects design.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 2022. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies of reconsolidation interference posit that reactivation of a previously consolidated memory via a reminder brings it into an active, labile state, leaving it open for potential manipulation. If interfered with, this may disrupt the original memory trace. While evidence for pharmacological reconsolidation interference is widespread, it remains unclear whether behavioural interference using the presentation of competing information can engender it, especially in declarative memory. Almost all previous studies in this area have employed between-subjects designs, in which there are potential confounds, such as different retrieval strategies for the multiple conditions. In the current studies, within-subjects paradigms were applied to test the effects of reconsolidation interference on associative recognition and free recall. In Experiment 1, participants engaged in pair-associate learning of unrelated object pictures on Day 1, and after a reminder, interference, reminder + interference, or no manipulation (control) on Day 2, were tested on associative recognition of these pairs on Day 3. In Experiments 2 and 3, memoranda were short stories studied on Day 1. On Day 2, stories were assigned to either control, reminder, interference by alternative stories, or reminder + interference conditions. On Day 3 participants recalled the Day 1 stories, and answered yes/no recognition questions. Reminders improved subsequent memory, while interference was effective in reducing retrieval in differing degrees across the experiments. Importantly, the reminder + interference condition was no more effective in impairing retrieval than the interference-alone condition, contrary to the prediction of the behavioural reconsolidation-interference approach.
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.