↓ Skip to main content

Integration of New Information with Active Memory Accounts for Retrograde Amnesia: A Challenge to the Consolidation/Reconsolidation Hypothesis?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroscience, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
10 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Integration of New Information with Active Memory Accounts for Retrograde Amnesia: A Challenge to the Consolidation/Reconsolidation Hypothesis?
Published in
Journal of Neuroscience, August 2015
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.1386-15.2015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pascale Gisquet-Verrier, Joseph F. Lynch, Pasquale Cutolo, Daniel Toledano, Adam Ulmen, Aaron M. Jasnow, David C. Riccio

Abstract

Active (new and reactivated) memories are considered to be labile and sensitive to treatments disrupting the time-dependent consolidation/reconsolidation processes required for their stabilization. Active memories also allow the integration of new information for updating memories. Here, we investigate the possibility that, when active, the internal state provided by amnesic treatments is represented and integrated within the initial memory and that amnesia results from the absence of this state at testing. We showed in rats that the amnesia resulting from systemic, intracerebroventricular and intrahippocampal injections of the protein synthesis inhibitor cycloheximide, administered after inhibitory avoidance training or reactivation, can be reversed by a reminder, including re-administration of the same drug. Similar results were obtained with lithium chloride (LiCl), which does not affect protein synthesis, when delivered systemically after training or reactivation. However, LiCl can induce memory given that a conditioned taste aversion was obtained for a novel taste, presented just before conditioning or reactivation. These results indicate that memories can be established and maintained without de novo protein synthesis and that experimental amnesia may not result from a disruption of memory consolidation/reconsolidation. The findings more likely support the integration hypothesis: posttraining/postreactivation treatments induce an internal state, which becomes encoded with the memory, and should be present at the time of testing to ensure a successful retrieval. This integration concept includes most of the previous explanations of memory recovery after retrograde amnesia and critically challenges the traditional memory consolidation/reconsolidation hypothesis, providing a more dynamic and flexible view of memory. This study provides evidence challenging the traditional consolidation/reconsolidation hypotheses that have dominated the literature over the past 50 years. Based on amnesia studies, that hypothesis states that active (i.e., new and reactivated) memories are similarly labile and (re)established in a time-dependent manner within the brain through processes that require de novo protein synthesis. Our data show that new/reactivated memories can be formed without protein synthesis and that amnesia can be induced by drugs that do not affect protein synthesis. We propose that amnesia results from memory integration of the internal state produced by the drug that is subsequently necessary for retrieval of the memory. This interpretation gives a dynamic view of memory, rapidly stored and easily updated when active.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 4 2%
United States 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 216 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 23%
Researcher 36 16%
Student > Bachelor 34 15%
Student > Master 29 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 5%
Other 43 19%
Unknown 24 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 66 29%
Neuroscience 56 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 5%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 14 6%
Unknown 41 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 January 2016.
All research outputs
#1,677,948
of 25,046,311 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroscience
#2,635
of 24,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,771
of 271,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroscience
#51
of 303 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,046,311 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,007 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,901 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 303 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.