title: The role and dynamic of strengthening in the reconsolidation process in a human declarative memory: what decides the fate of recent and older memories?
abstract: Several reports have shown that after specific reminders are presented, consolidated memories pass from a stable state to one in which the memory is reactivated. This reactivation implies that memories are labile and susceptible to amnesic agents. This susceptibility decreases over time and leads to a re-stabilization phase usually known as reconsolidation. With respect to the biological role of reconsolidation, two functions have been proposed. First, the reconsolidation process allows new information to be integrated into the background of the original memory; second, it strengthens the original memory. We have previously demonstrated that both of these functions occur in the reconsolidation of human declarative memories. Our paradigm consisted of learning verbal material (lists of five pairs of nonsense syllables) acquired by a training process (L1-training) on Day 1 of our experiment. After this declarative memory is consolidated, it can be made labile by presenting a specific reminder. After this, the memory passes through a subsequent stabilization process. Strengthening creates a new scenario for the reconsolidation process; this function represents a new factor that may transform the dynamic of memories. First, we analyzed whether the repeated labilization-reconsolidation processes maintained the memory for longer periods of time. We showed that at least one labilization-reconsolidation process strengthens a memory via evaluation 5 days after its re-stabilization. We also demonstrated that this effect is not triggered by retrieval only. We then analyzed the way strengthening modified the effect of an amnesic agent that was presented immediately after repeated labilizations. The repeated labilization-reconsolidation processes made the memory more resistant to interference during re-stabilization. Finally, we evaluated whether the effect of strengthening may depend on the age of the memory. We found that the effect of strengthening did depend on the age of the memory. Forgetting may represent a process that weakens the effect of strengthening.
authors: Laboratorio de Neurobiología de la Memoria, Departamento de Fisiología, Biología Molecular y Celular, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, IFIBYNE - CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
authors: Cecilia
authors: C
authors: Forcato
authors: Rodrigo S
authors: RS
authors: Fernandez
authors: María E
authors: ME
authors: Pedreira
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D057567:Memory, Long-Term / Q000502:physiology*; D008570:Memory, Short-Term / Q000502:physiology*; D013997:Time Factors; D014706:Verbal Learning / Q000502:physiology*
references: Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2010 Jan;93(1):77-84
references: 19703575
references: Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1995 Apr;5(2):169-77
references: 7620304
references: PLoS One. 2009 Oct 21;4(10):e7519
references: 19844577
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994 Sep;20(5):1063-87
references: 7931095
references: Science. 2000 Jan 14;287(5451):248-51
references: 10634773
references: Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2009 Jan;91(1):50-7
references: 18854218
references: Science. 2007 Apr 6;316(5821):76-82
references: 17412951
references: Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010 Jan;35(1):86-104
references: 19776728
references: Neuropharmacology. 2013 Jan;64:432-42
references: 22819624
references: Neuroscience. 2011 Jun 30;185:61-72
references: 21514368
references: Psychol Rev. 1995 Jul;102(3):419-457
references: 7624455
references: J Neurosci. 2011 Feb 2;31(5):1635-43
references: 21289172
references: Nat Neurosci. 2008 Nov;11(11):1264-6
references: 18849987
references: Learn Mem. 2000 Mar-Apr;7(2):73-84
references: 10753974
references: J Neurosci. 2004 May 19;24(20):4787-95
references: 15152039
references: Learn Mem. 2007 Apr 10;14(4):295-303
references: 17522018
references: Behav Neurosci. 2011 Oct;125(5):699-704
references: 21875174
references: Biosci Rep. 2001 Oct;21(5):565-611
references: 12168768
references: Learn Mem. 2011 Feb 16;18(3):132-5
references: 21325434
references: Neuron. 2006 May 4;50(3):479-89
references: 16675401
references: Annu Rev Neurosci. 2012;35:227-47
references: 22443508
references: Science. 1968 May 3;160(3827):554-5
references: 5689415
references: Psychol Sci. 2001 Mar;12(2):148-52
references: 11340924
references: Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012 Feb 01;11(2):141-68
references: 22293568
references: Neuron. 2002 Oct 24;36(3):521-5
references: 12408853
references: Nature. 2000 Aug 17;406(6797):722-6
references: 10963596
references: Learn Mem. 2004 Sep-Oct;11(5):579-85
references: 15466312
references: Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2013 Jan;99:38-49
references: 23178795
references: Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010 Apr;35(5):1097-108
references: 20043007
references: Learn Mem. 2007 Jan 03;14(1-2):47-53
references: 17202429
references: Trends Neurosci. 2009 Aug;32(8):413-20
references: 19640595
references: Nat Neurosci. 2009 Jul;12(7):905-12
references: 19543280
references: Trends Neurosci. 2005 Jan;28(1):51-6
references: 15626497
references: PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e23305
references: 21850268
references: Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1997 Apr;7(2):217-27
references: 9142752
references: Science. 2004 May 7;304(5672):839-43
references: 15073322