Non-linear susceptibility to interferences in declarative memory formation.
After encoding, memories go through a labile state followed by a stabilization process known as consolidation. Once consolidated they can enter a new labile state after the presentation of a reminder of the original memory, followed by a period of re-stabilization (reconsolidation). During these per...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270678 |
| _version_ | 1811294820521476096 |
|---|---|
| author | Malen D Moyano Giulia Carbonari Matías Bonilla María E Pedreira Luis I Brusco Laura Kaczer Cecilia Forcato |
| author_facet | Malen D Moyano Giulia Carbonari Matías Bonilla María E Pedreira Luis I Brusco Laura Kaczer Cecilia Forcato |
| author_sort | Malen D Moyano |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | After encoding, memories go through a labile state followed by a stabilization process known as consolidation. Once consolidated they can enter a new labile state after the presentation of a reminder of the original memory, followed by a period of re-stabilization (reconsolidation). During these periods of lability the memory traces can be modified. Currently, some studies show a rapid stabilization after 30 min, while others show that stabilization occurs after longer periods (e.g. > 6 h). Here we investigate the effect of an interference treatment on declarative memory consolidation, comparing distinct time intervals after acquisition. On day 1, participants learned a list of non- syllable pairs (List 1). 5 min, 30 min, 3 h or 8 h later, they received an interference list (List 2) that acted as an amnesic agent. On day 2 (48 h after training) participants had to recall List 1 first, followed by List 2. We found that the List 1 memory was susceptible to interference when List 2 was administered 5 min or 3 h after learning but not when it was administered 30 min or 8 h after. We propose the possibility that this rapid memory protection could be induced by a fast and transient neocortical integration. Our results open a discussion about the contribution of molecular and systemic aspects to memory consolidation. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T05:23:10Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ae58fdddbcf347fb90665760c23f4931 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T05:23:10Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-ae58fdddbcf347fb90665760c23f49312022-12-22T03:00:40ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032022-01-01176e027067810.1371/journal.pone.0270678Non-linear susceptibility to interferences in declarative memory formation.Malen D MoyanoGiulia CarbonariMatías BonillaMaría E PedreiraLuis I BruscoLaura KaczerCecilia ForcatoAfter encoding, memories go through a labile state followed by a stabilization process known as consolidation. Once consolidated they can enter a new labile state after the presentation of a reminder of the original memory, followed by a period of re-stabilization (reconsolidation). During these periods of lability the memory traces can be modified. Currently, some studies show a rapid stabilization after 30 min, while others show that stabilization occurs after longer periods (e.g. > 6 h). Here we investigate the effect of an interference treatment on declarative memory consolidation, comparing distinct time intervals after acquisition. On day 1, participants learned a list of non- syllable pairs (List 1). 5 min, 30 min, 3 h or 8 h later, they received an interference list (List 2) that acted as an amnesic agent. On day 2 (48 h after training) participants had to recall List 1 first, followed by List 2. We found that the List 1 memory was susceptible to interference when List 2 was administered 5 min or 3 h after learning but not when it was administered 30 min or 8 h after. We propose the possibility that this rapid memory protection could be induced by a fast and transient neocortical integration. Our results open a discussion about the contribution of molecular and systemic aspects to memory consolidation.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270678 |
| spellingShingle | Malen D Moyano Giulia Carbonari Matías Bonilla María E Pedreira Luis I Brusco Laura Kaczer Cecilia Forcato Non-linear susceptibility to interferences in declarative memory formation. PLoS ONE |
| title | Non-linear susceptibility to interferences in declarative memory formation. |
| title_full | Non-linear susceptibility to interferences in declarative memory formation. |
| title_fullStr | Non-linear susceptibility to interferences in declarative memory formation. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Non-linear susceptibility to interferences in declarative memory formation. |
| title_short | Non-linear susceptibility to interferences in declarative memory formation. |
| title_sort | non linear susceptibility to interferences in declarative memory formation |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270678 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT malendmoyano nonlinearsusceptibilitytointerferencesindeclarativememoryformation AT giuliacarbonari nonlinearsusceptibilitytointerferencesindeclarativememoryformation AT matiasbonilla nonlinearsusceptibilitytointerferencesindeclarativememoryformation AT mariaepedreira nonlinearsusceptibilitytointerferencesindeclarativememoryformation AT luisibrusco nonlinearsusceptibilitytointerferencesindeclarativememoryformation AT laurakaczer nonlinearsusceptibilitytointerferencesindeclarativememoryformation AT ceciliaforcato nonlinearsusceptibilitytointerferencesindeclarativememoryformation |