↓ Skip to main content

Does Reconsolidation Occur in Humans?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
183 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
337 Mendeley
citeulike
2 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
Does Reconsolidation Occur in Humans?
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2011.00024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela Schiller, Elizabeth A. Phelps

Abstract

Evidence for reconsolidation in non-human animals has accumulated rapidly in the last decade, providing compelling` demonstration for this phenomenon across species and memory paradigms. In vast contrast, scant evidence exists for human reconsolidation to date. A major reason for this discrepancy is the invasive nature of current techniques used to investigate reconsolidation, which are difficult to apply in humans. Pharmacological blockade of reconsolidation, for example, has been typically used in animals as a proof of concept. However, most compounds used in these studies are toxic for humans, and those compounds that are safe target related, but not direct mechanisms of reconsolidation. Thus, although human reconsolidation has been hypothesized, there is limited evidence it actually exists. The best evidence for human reconsolidation emerges from non-invasive techniques that "update" memory during reconsolidation rather than block it, a technique only rarely used in animal research. Here we discuss the current state of human reconsolidation and the challenges ahead. We review findings on reconsolidation of emotional associative, episodic, and procedural memories, using invasive and non-invasive techniques. We discuss the possible interpretation of these results, attempt to reconcile some inconsistencies, and suggest a conceptual framework for future research.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 337 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 1%
United States 5 1%
Germany 3 <1%
France 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Israel 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 310 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 19%
Researcher 60 18%
Student > Master 51 15%
Student > Bachelor 43 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 6%
Other 64 19%
Unknown 33 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 147 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 12%
Neuroscience 40 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 7%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Other 25 7%
Unknown 55 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 05 December 2019.
All research outputs
#629,279
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#106
of 3,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,804
of 180,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,144 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 180,355 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.