Display options
Share it on

Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Dec 20;10:641. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00641. eCollection 2016.

Interference Conditions of the Reconsolidation Process in Humans: The Role of Valence and Different Memory Systems.

Frontiers in human neuroscience

Rodrigo S Fernández, Luz Bavassi, Laura Kaczer, Cecilia Forcato, María E Pedreira

Affiliations

  1. Laboratorio de Neurobiología de la Memoria, Departamento de Fisiología y Biología Molecular y Celular, IFIBYNE-CONICET, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires Buenos Aires, Argentina.
  2. Laboratorio de Neurobiología de la Memoria, Departamento de Fisiología y Biología Molecular y Celular, IFIBYNE-CONICET, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos AiresBuenos Aires, Argentina; Departamento de Física, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos AiresBuenos Aires, Argentina.

PMID: 28066212 PMCID: PMC5167735 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00641

Abstract

Following the presentation of a reminder, consolidated memories become reactivated followed by a process of re-stabilization, which is referred to as reconsolidation. The most common behavioral tool used to reveal this process is interference produced by new learning shortly after memory reactivation. Memory interference is defined as a decrease in memory retrieval, the effect is generated when new information impairs an acquired memory. In general, the target memory and the interference task used are the same. Here we investigated how different memory systems and/or their valence could produce memory reconsolidation interference. We showed that a reactivated neutral declarative memory could be interfered by new learning of a different neutral declarative memory. Then, we revealed that an aversive implicit memory could be interfered by the presentation of a reminder followed by a threatening social event. Finally, we showed that the reconsolidation of a neutral declarative memory is unaffected by the acquisition of an aversive implicit memory and conversely, this memory remains intact when the neutral declarative memory is used as interference. These results suggest that the interference of memory reconsolidation is effective when two task rely on the same memory system or both evoke negative valence.

Keywords: boundary conditions; declarative memory; interference; pavlovian conditioning; reconsolidation; social threat

References

  1. Nat Neurosci. 2011 Jun 26;14(8):953-5 - PubMed
  2. Science. 2000 Jan 14;287(5451):248-51 - PubMed
  3. Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul;108(3):483-522 - PubMed
  4. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2013 Jan;99:38-49 - PubMed
  5. Cortex. 2007 Jul;43(5):616-34 - PubMed
  6. Neuropsychobiology. 1993;28(1-2):76-81 - PubMed
  7. Prog Neurobiol. 2012 Oct;99(1):61-80 - PubMed
  8. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2014 Mar;15(3):157-69 - PubMed
  9. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2010 Jul;94(1):30-41 - PubMed
  10. Mem Cognit. 1997 Sep;25(5):731-9 - PubMed
  11. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2015 Dec;126:56-66 - PubMed
  12. Learn Mem. 2007 Jan 03;14(1-2):47-53 - PubMed
  13. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:235-69 - PubMed
  14. Neuropsychologia. 1984;22(4):435-43 - PubMed
  15. Psychol Bull. 1993 Jul;114(1):80-99 - PubMed
  16. J Neurosci. 2006 Mar 15;26(11):3010-20 - PubMed
  17. Nature. 2010 Jan 7;463(7277):49-53 - PubMed
  18. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1988;11:329-52 - PubMed
  19. Trends Neurosci. 2009 Aug;32(8):413-20 - PubMed
  20. Neuroscience. 2013 Aug 6;244:42-8 - PubMed
  21. Hippocampus. 2012 May;22(5):1092-5 - PubMed
  22. Sci Rep. 2015 Sep 02;5:13633 - PubMed
  23. Eur J Neurosci. 2004 Dec;20(12):3397-403 - PubMed
  24. Elife. 2014 Jun 24;3:e02736 - PubMed
  25. Depress Anxiety. 2015 Jan;32(1):32-7 - PubMed
  26. Transl Psychiatry. 2012 Feb 07;2:e76 - PubMed
  27. PLoS One. 2013 Apr 26;8(4):e61688 - PubMed
  28. PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e23305 - PubMed
  29. Learn Mem. 2007 Apr 10;14(4):295-303 - PubMed
  30. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 Nov;38(6):1780-5 - PubMed
  31. Curr Biol. 2012 Jan 24;22(2):R66-71 - PubMed
  32. Behav Res Ther. 2005 Nov;43(11):1391-424 - PubMed
  33. J Neurosci. 2010 Nov 3;30(44):14817-23 - PubMed
  34. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2015 Aug 03;7(8):a021766 - PubMed
  35. Nature. 2003 Oct 9;425(6958):616-20 - PubMed
  36. Nat Neurosci. 2009 Mar;12(3):256-8 - PubMed
  37. Science. 2009 Oct 16;326(5951):391-5 - PubMed
  38. Nat Neurosci. 2014 Feb;17(2):204-6 - PubMed
  39. J Neurosci Methods. 2010 Jun 30;190(1):80-91 - PubMed
  40. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2004 Nov;82(3):171-7 - PubMed
  41. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2012;35:227-47 - PubMed
  42. Nat Neurosci. 2010 Apr;13(4):501-6 - PubMed
  43. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1998 Mar;127(1):69-82 - PubMed
  44. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Jun;14(6):417-28 - PubMed
  45. Behav Neurosci. 2011 Oct;125(5):699-704 - PubMed
  46. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2009 Jan;91(1):50-7 - PubMed
  47. Biol Psychiatry. 2002 Nov 15;52(10):976-86 - PubMed
  48. Nature. 2000 Aug 17;406(6797):722-6 - PubMed
  49. J Physiol Paris. 2014 Sep-Dec;108(4-6):323-33 - PubMed
  50. Neuroscience. 2009 Jan 23;158(2):503-13 - PubMed
  51. PLoS One. 2009 Oct 21;4(10):e7519 - PubMed
  52. Neuroscience. 2005;135(1):19-29 - PubMed
  53. Learn Mem. 2004 Sep-Oct;11(5):485-94 - PubMed
  54. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994 Sep;20(5):1063-87 - PubMed
  55. J Neurosci. 2011 Feb 2;31(5):1635-43 - PubMed
  56. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016 Sep;68:423-41 - PubMed
  57. Science. 1997 Aug 8;277(5327):821-5 - PubMed
  58. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2016 Apr;130:202-12 - PubMed

Publication Types