Human reconsolidation does not always occur when a memory is retrieved: the relevance of the reminder structure

Memory reconsolidation is defined as a process in which the retrieval of a previously consolidated memory returns to a labile state which is then subject to stabilization. The reminder is the event that begins with the presentation of the learned cue and triggers the labilization-reconsolidation process. Since the early formulation of the hypothesis, several controversial items have arisen concerning the conditions that define reconsolidation. It is herein proposed that two diagnostic features characterize reconsolidation, namely: the labilization of the reactivated memory and the specificity of the reminder structure. To study this proposal, subjects received two different training sessions on verbal material on Day 1 and Day 2, respectively. Finally, they were tested for the first and second acquired memories on Day 3. It is demonstrated that the human declarative memory fulfills the two requirements that define the process. First, the reactivated memory is impaired by a new learning only when it is given closely after the reminder, revealing that the memory is labilized. Second, the omission of at least one of the reminder's components prevents labilization. Therefore, results show that the new learning fails to produce an amnesic effect on the target memory either when the reminder omits the learned cue or includes the beginning of the reinforcement.     

Retrieval per se is not sufficient to trigger reconsolidation of human fear memory

Ample evidence suggests that consolidated memories, upon their retrieval, enter a labile state, in which they might be susceptible to change. It has been proposed that memory labilization allows for the integration of relevant information in the established memory trace (memory updating). Memory labilization and reconsolidation do not necessarily occur when a memory is being reactivated, but only when there is something to be learned during memory retrieval (prediction error). Thus, updating of a fear memory trace should not occur under retrieval conditions in which the outcome is fully predictable (no prediction error). Here, we addressed this issue, using a human differential fear conditioning procedure, by eliminating the very possibility of reinforcement of the reminder cue. A previously established fear memory (picture-shock pairings) was reactivated with shock-electrodes attached (Propranolol group, n=18) or unattached (Propranolol No-Shock Expectation group, n=19). We additionally tested a placebo-control group with the shock-electrodes attached (Placebo group, n=18). Reconsolidation was not triggered when nothing could be learned during the reminder trial, as noradrenergic blockade did not affect expression of the fear memory 24h later in the Propranolol No-Shock Expectation group. Only when the outcome of the retrieval cue was not fully predictable, propranolol, contrary to placebo, reduced the startle fear response and prevented the return of fear (reinstatement) the following day. In line with previous studies, skin conductance response and shock expectancies were not affected by propranolol. Remarkably, a double dissociation emerged between the emotional (startle response) and more cognitive expression (expectancies, SCR) of the fear memory. Our findings have important implications for reconsolidation blockade as treatment strategy for emotional disorders. First, fear reducing procedures that target the emotional component of fear memory do not necessarily affect the cognitive component and vice versa. Second, mere retrieval of the fear memory is not sufficient to induce its labilization and reconsolidation.     

Reconsolidation of declarative memory in humans

The reconsolidation hypothesis states that a consolidated memory could again become unstable and susceptible to facilitation or impairment for a discrete period of time after a reminder presentation. The phenomenon has been demonstrated in very diverse species and types of memory, including the human procedural memory of a motor skill task but not the human declarative one. Here we provide evidence for both consolidation and reconsolidation in a paired-associate learning (i.e., learning an association between a cue syllable and the respective response syllable). Subjects were given two training sessions with a 24-h interval on distinct verbal material, and afterward, they received at testing two successive retrievals corresponding to the first and second learning, respectively. Two main results are noted. First, the first acquired memory was impaired when a reminder was presented 5 min before the second training (reconsolidation), and also when the second training was given 5 min instead of 24 h after the first one (consolidation). Second, the first retrieval proved to influence negatively on the later one (the retrieval-induced forgetting [RIF] effect), and we used the absence of this RIF effect as a very indicator of the target memory impairment. We consider the demonstration of reconsolidation in human declarative memory as backing the universality of this phenomenon and having potential clinical relevance. On the other hand, we discuss the possibility of using the human declarative memory as a model to address several key topics of the reconsolidation hypothesis.     

Reconsolidation of episodic memories: a subtle reminder triggers integration of new information

Recent demonstrations of "reconsolidation" suggest that memories can be modified when they are reactivated. Reconsolidation has been observed in human procedural memory and in implicit memory in infants. This study asks whether episodic memory undergoes reconsolidation. College students learned a list of objects on Day 1. On Day 2, they received a reminder or not, and then learned a second list. Memory for List 1 was tested immediately on Day 2 (Experiment 2) or on Day 3 (Experiment 1). Although the reminder did not moderate the number of items recalled from List 1 on either day, subjects who received a reminder incorrectly intermixed items from the second list when recalling List 1 on Day 3. Experiment 2 showed that this effect does not occur immediately and thus is time-dependent. The reminder did not affect memory for List 2 on Day 3 (Experiment 3), demonstrating that modification occurred only for the original memory (List 1). The study demonstrates the crucial role of reminders for the modification of episodic memory, that reconsolidation of episodic memory is time-dependent, and, in contrast to previous reconsolidation findings, that reconsolidation is also a constructive process, one that supports the incorporation of new information in memory.     

Mismatch between what is expected and what actually occurs triggers memory reconsolidation or extinction

In previous experiments on contextual memory, we proposed that the unreinforced re-exposure to the learning context (conditioned stimulus, CS) acts as a switch guiding the memory course toward reconsolidation or extinction, depending on reminder duration. This proposal implies that the system computes the total exposure time to the context, from CS onset to CS offset, and therefore, that the reminder presentation must be terminated for the switching mechanism to become operative. Here we investigated to what extent this requirement is necessary, and we explored the relation between diverse phases in the reconsolidation and extinction processes. We used the contextual memory model of the crab Chasmagnathus which involves an association between the learning context (CS) and a visual danger stimulus (unconditioned stimulus, US). Administration of cycloheximide was used to test the lability state of memory at different time points. The results show that two factors, no-reinforcement during the reminder (i.e., CS re-exposure) and CS offset are the necessary conditions for both processes to occur. Regardless of the reminder duration, memory retrieved by unreinforced CS re-exposure emerges intact and consolidated when tested before CS offset, suggesting that neither reconsolidation nor extinction is concomitant with CS re-exposure. Either process could only be triggered once the definitive mismatch between CS and US is confirmed by CS termination without the expected reinforcement.     

Extinction learning, reconsolidation and the internal reinforcement hypothesis

Retrieving a consolidated memory--by exposing an animal to the learned stimulus but not to the associated reinforcement--leads to two opposing processes: one that weakens the old memory as a result of extinction learning, and another that strengthens the old, already-consolidated memory as a result of some less well-understood form of learning. This latter process of memory strengthening is often referred to as "reconsolidation", since protein synthesis can inhibit this form of memory formation. Although the behavioral phenomena of the two antagonizing forms of learning are well documented, the mechanisms behind the corresponding processes of memory formation are still quite controversial. Referring to results of extinction/reconsolidation experiments in honeybees, we argue that two opposing learning processes--with their respective consolidation phases and memories--are initiated by retrieval trials: extinction learning and reminder learning, the latter leading to the phenomenon of spontaneous recovery from extinction, a process that can be blocked with protein synthesis inhibition.     

Systemic and intrahippocampal administrations of the glucocorticoid receptor antagonist RU38486 impairs fear memory reconsolidation in rats

Reconsolidation is the process by which previously consolidated memories are stabilized after retrieval. Several lines of evidence indicate that glucocorticoids modulate distinct phases of learning and memory. These effects are considered to be mediated by mineralocorticoid receptors and glucocorticoid receptors (GRs), which display a high concentration and distinct distribution in the hippocampus. The role of glucocorticoid system in fear memory reconsolidation is the subject of some controversy. Moreover, we found no studies that assessed the role of hippocampal GRs in fear memory reconsolidation. Here, we investigated the effect of GR blockade on fear memory reconsolidation in rats. Rats were trained and tested in an inhibitory avoidance task. Intrahippocampal or systemic administration of the GR antagonist RU38486 immediately following memory reactivation produced a deficit in post-retrieval long-term memory that persisted over test sessions, and memory did not re-emerge following a footshock reminder. These results indicate that hippocampal GRs are required for reconsolidation of fear-based memory.     

记忆再巩固的时间动态性及其生物学机制

记忆巩固需经觉醒状态下的信息编码和睡眠状态下的巩固阶段两个过程。记忆再巩固理论认为记忆巩固是一个需要多次反复巩固的过程,即使已巩固的记忆也会在提取激活后变得不稳定, 需经再巩固才能重返稳定状态, 此过程需要新的蛋白质的合成。记忆再巩固具有较强的时间特征, 发生在记忆巩固之后, 依赖于蛋白质降解的去稳定化阶段和依赖于蛋白质合成的记忆再稳定阶段, 所持续的时间窗为6 h。不同类型的记忆是否引发记忆再巩固或消退行为, 取决于提取试次暴露所持续时间的长短。     

The effects of the dopamine D1 receptor antagonist SCH23390 on memory reconsolidation following reminder-activated retrieval in day-old chicks

This series of experiments examined the involvement of the dopamine D1 receptor antagonist, SCH23390, on memory reconsolidation following reminder-activated retrieval. Day-old male New HampshirexWhite Leghorn chicks were trained on a single trial passive avoidance task. A dose of 0.5 mg/kg of SCH23390 was administered subcutaneously 5 min before reminder trials, which were presented at 30, 60, and 90 min following training. Memory deficits were observed when reminder trials were presented at 30 and 60 min following training, but not when a reminder was presented at 90 min. No effect on memory retention was observed when reminder trials were not presented, suggesting that reconsolidation mechanisms were both contingent on the presentation of the reminder and independent of the consolidation process. Following a reminder presented at 60 min post-training, deficits in memory retention emerged between 45 and 60 min. The deficit was prolonged, lasting for up until 48 h after reminder presentation. The results indicate an important role for the D1 receptor in reconsolidation processes.     

No evidence for a role of reconsolidation in updating of paired associates

Reconsolidation theory states that memories are labilized through reactivation, making them prone to change, before being re-consolidated. When information in memory requires updating, reconsolidation theory therefore predicts that reminders of previously learned information should facilitate updating of that information and should thus improve memory for the updated information. In two experiments, we tested this prediction by investigating memory for word pairs over a short time-scale. Participants studied word pairs (A–B), some of which were subsequently updated with word pairs that shared the first word (A–C). Half of the A–C pairs received a pre-study reminder of the first word in the pair so as to reactivate and labilize A–B memory. In a recognition memory test targeting the A–C list, reminders by and large had no effect on memory. Results thus failed to support the predictions of reconsolidation theory.     

A role for ERK2 in reconsolidation of fear memories in mice

Recent studies have shown that consolidated fear memories, when reactivated, return to a labile state that requires a new protein synthesis for reconsolidation. Post-retrieval infusion of an inhibitor of protein synthesis blocks memory reconsolidation processes. In a previous research, the role of MAPKs in memory consolidation has been shown in emotional tasks, such as passive and active avoidance. In particular, mice knockout for ERK1 had a better performance in comparison to wild type mice in both passive and active avoidance tasks. In the present study, in order to investigate the involvement of MAPKs in memory reconsolidation processes we administered immediately after retrieval, different doses of SL327 (an inhibitor of MEK, a kinase that activates both ERK1 and ERK2) both in C57BL/6 (C57) mice and ERK1 mutant mice tested in a fear conditioning task. Systemic administration of SL327 dose-dependently reduced the memory reconsolidation of fear memories in C57 mice. Moreover, SL327 administration impaired memory reconsolidation also in ERK1 mutant mice. Altogether, these results clearly indicate a central role for ERK2 protein in memory reconsolidation processes in mice.     

De novo mRNA synthesis is required for both consolidation and reconsolidation of fear memories in the amygdala

Memory consolidation is the process by which newly learned information is stabilized into long-term memory (LTM). Considerable evidence indicates that retrieval of a consolidated memory returns it to a labile state that requires it to be restabilized. Consolidation of new fear memories has been shown to require de novo RNA and protein synthesis in the lateral nucleus of the amygdala (LA). We have previously shown that de novo protein synthesis in the LA is required for reconsolidation of auditory fear memories. One key question is whether protein synthesis during reconsolidation depends on already existing mRNAs or on synthesis of new mRNAs in the amygdala. In the present study, we examined the effect of mRNA synthesis inhibition during consolidation and reconsolidation of auditory fear memories. We first show that intra-LA infusion of two different mRNA inhibitors dose-dependently impairs long-term memory but leaves short-term memory (STM) intact. Next, we show that intra-LA infusion of the same inhibitors dose-dependently blocks post-reactivation long-term memory (PR-LTM), whereas post-reactivation short-term memory (PR-STM) is left intact. Furthermore, the same treatment in the absence of memory reactivation has no effect. Together, these results show that both consolidation and reconsolidation of auditory fear memories require de novo mRNA synthesis and are equally sensitive to disruption of de novo mRNA synthesis in the LA.     

Retrieval does not induce reconsolidation of inhibitory avoidance memory

It has been suggested that retrieval during a nonreinforced test induces reconsolidation instead of extinction of the mnemonic trace. Reconsolidation would preserve the original memory from the labilization induced by its nonreinforced recall through a hitherto uncharacterized mechanism requiring protein synthesis. Given the importance that such a process would have in terms of maintaining, as part of the animal behavioral repertoire, a learned response that has been devalued by experience, we analyzed its existence for the memory associated with a one-trial, step-down inhibitory avoidance task (IA), a memory whose consolidation and extinction require protein synthesis in the CA1 region of the dorsal hippocampus (CA1) and involve the participation of the basolateral amygdala (BLA) and entorhinal cortex (ENT). Rats were trained in IA, and 24 h later they were submitted either to a pure reactivation session (retrieval without stepping down), which was unable by itself to initiate extinction of the avoidance response, or to a second training session. Fifteen minutes before or 3 h after either the reactivation or the retraining sessions, animals were infused with the protein synthesis inhibitor anisomycin (ANI) into CA1, BLA, or ENT. Contrary to the prediction of the reconsolidation hypothesis, none of these treatments affected subsequent memory retention. Because reconsolidation is regarded to be a direct consequence of retrieval, one would expect that, when given before a retention test or a pure reactivation session, enhancers of memory expression should permanently improve retention and, therefore, facilitate retrieval both in that and in subsequent sessions. Using two well-known retrieval enhancers, noradrenaline and adrenocorticotropin(1-24), we could not find any evidence suggestive of reconsolidation. Hence, our results indicate that there is no retrieval-induced, protein synthesis-dependent process that would cause reconsolidation of IA memory.     

Disrupting reconsolidation: pharmacological and behavioral manipulations

We previously demonstrated that disrupting reconsolidation by pharmacological manipulations "deleted" the emotional expression of a fear memory in humans. If we are to target reconsolidation in patients with anxiety disorders, the disruption of reconsolidation should produce content-limited modifications. At the same time, the fear-erasing effects should not be restricted to the feared cue itself considering that fear generalization is a main characteristic of anxiety disorders. In Experiment I and Experiment I(b), we addressed these issues using a within-subject differential startle fear conditioning paradigm and a test of fear generalization. In Experiment II, we tested whether a behavioral approach targeting the reconsolidation through extinction learning was also effective in weakening the original fear memory. A behavioral procedure is evidently preferred over drug manipulations provided that similar effects can be obtained. Here, the extinction procedure subsequent to retrieval did not "erase" the emotional expression of the fear memory as the retrieval techniques (i.e., reminder shocks and reacquisition) unveiled a return of the startle fear response to the fear-relevant stimuli. In contrast, β-adrenergic receptor blockade during reconsolidation selectively deleted the fear-arousing aspects of the memory (i.e., startle fear response) along with its category-related information. The pharmacological manipulation rendered the core memory trace too weak to observe fear generalization after successful reacquisition. Hence, relearning following the disruption of reconsolidation seems to be qualitatively different from initial learning. Our findings demonstrate that disrupting reconsolidation by pharmacological manipulations, although selective, undermines the generalization of fear, a key feature of anxiety disorders.     

Differential involvement of mGluR1 and mGluR5 in memory reconsolidation and retrieval in a passive avoidance task in 1-day old chicks

Group I metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) are involved in memory formation. The Ca2+ signal derived from stimulation of IP3 receptors (IP3Rs) via mGluRs, initiates protein synthesis that is required for memory consolidation and reconsolidation. However it has been suggested that different mechanisms are triggered by mGluR1/5 activation in these two processes. It is also not clear whether the transient amnesia observed after blockade of group I mGluRs after a reminder, results from disturbance of memory reconsolidation or temporal impairment of recall. The aim of this study was to examine more closely the role of mGluR1 in memory consolidation and reconsolidation and to detect differences in the participation of mGluR1 and mGluR5 in memory retrieval after initial training and after the remainder of the task. Our results demonstrate, that in chicks performing a one-trial passive avoidance task, antagonists of mGluR1, mGluR5 and IP3R significantly disturb memory consolidation and reconsolidation. Inhibition of mGluR5 and IP3R also impairs memory recall, whereas mGluR1 do not seem to participate in this process. The presented data suggest that activation of mGluR1 and mGluR5 is necessary for the correct course of memory consolidation and reconsolidation, whereas mGluR5 are additionally involved in retrieval processes dependent on Ca2+ release from IP3 activated intracellular stores.     

条件性恐惧记忆消退的提取干预范式及其作用的神经机制

基于记忆再巩固理论的恐惧记忆提取干预范式被证明可以有效消退恐惧记忆, 能克服传统消退容易复发的缺点。该范式通过单独呈现条件刺激激活原有恐惧记忆, 使记忆重返不稳定状态, 随后在再巩固时间窗内实施干预则能改写原有记忆。目前该范式起作用的神经机制尚不明确, 本文在现有的人类研究和动物研究基础上, 总结了杏仁核、前额叶和海马三个脑区在提取干预过程中的作用, 以及该领域研究的争议点, 为之后的研究提供思路。     

On the role of hippocampal protein synthesis in the consolidation and reconsolidation of object recognition memory

Upon retrieval, consolidated memories are again rendered vulnerable to the action of metabolic blockers, notably protein synthesis inhibitors. This has led to the hypothesis that memories are reconsolidated at the time of retrieval, and that this depends on protein synthesis. Ample evidence indicates that the hippocampus plays a key role both in the consolidation and reconsolidation of different memories. Despite this fact, at present there are no studies about the consequences of hippocampal protein synthesis inhibition in the storage and post-retrieval persistence of object recognition memory. Here we report that infusion of the protein synthesis inhibitor anisomycin in the dorsal CA1 region immediately or 180 min but not 360 min after training impairs consolidation of long-term object recognition memory without affecting short-term memory, exploratory behavior, anxiety state, or hippocampal functionality. When given into CA1 after memory reactivation in the presence of familiar objects, ANI did not affect further retention. However, when administered into CA1 immediately after exposing animals to a novel and a familiar object, ANI impaired memory of both of them. The amnesic effect of ANI was long-lasting, did not happen after exposure to two novel objects, following exploration of the context alone, or in the absence of specific stimuli, suggesting that it was not reversible but was contingent on the reactivation of the consolidated trace in the presence of a salient, behaviorally relevant novel cue. Our results indicate that hippocampal protein synthesis is required during a limited post-training time window for consolidation of object recognition memory and show that the hippocampus is engaged during reconsolidation of this type of memory, maybe accruing new information into the original trace.     

人类记忆再巩固研究现状及临床应用

巩固的记忆被提取后,进入不稳定状态,再重新稳定下来,这个过程称为记忆再巩固。本文首先阐述人类记忆再巩固主要研究方法和经典范式,梳理记忆再巩固在人类恐惧记忆和情景记忆两个方面的相关研究,并从认知神经科学角度整理记忆再巩固的加工机制。然后总结记忆再巩固应用于创伤性应激障碍和药物成瘾等心理障碍临床治疗的相关文献。最后本文提出未来研究的方向和建议,希冀对人类记忆再巩固的理论研究和临床应用提供新思路。     

对人类不良记忆的修饰：来自记忆再巩固的证据

已经巩固的长时记忆被再次提取后, 进入一个记忆的不稳定期, 在此过程中, 记忆可被更新、强化、削弱甚至抹除, 这个过程称为再巩固。人类不良记忆再巩固研究揭示记忆激活后口服普萘洛尔(propranolol)或进行消退训练可削弱或抹除不良情绪记忆, 此过程中涉及杏仁核、海马、前额叶皮层等脑区的参与及其构成的神经环路的调控。当前临床上利用再巩固原理可通过药物治疗、行为干预或无创脑部刺激的方法改变不良记忆。然而, 由于其形成过程复杂并受多种因素影响, 未来研究应尽可能模拟临床中人类不良记忆形成的复杂环境, 深入探讨再巩固“边界问题”, 推动实验室研究向临床应用的转化。     

Both differences in encoding processes and monitoring at retrieval reduce false alarms when distinctive information is studied

ABSTRACT

Recent research has provided evidence for memory modifications when a post-reactivation treatment (e.g., drugs, new learning) interferes with the memory re-stabilisation (reconsolidation) process. This finding contradicts the long-standing consolidation theory and has high practical and theoretical implications. With an object-learning paradigm, it was shown that episodic memory is highly susceptible to interfering material presented after its reactivation [Hupbach, A., Gomez, R., Hardt, O., &; Nadel, L. (2007). Reconsolidation of episodic memories: A subtle reminder triggers integration of new information. Learning &; Memory, 14, 47–53. doi:10.1101/lm.365707]. The reactivation of a learned list (List 1) before a second learned list (List 2) led to intrusion errors from List 2 when trying to recall List 1, but not vice-versa. Their work has been widely cited and their findings have been explained according to reconsolidation theory. For the first time, we systematically explored the role of retrieval context as an alternative explanation for Hupbach’s results. Our results showed that the intrusion effect occurs independently of the retrieval context (Experiment 1). Additionally, even when the intrusion rate probability is increased (i.e., List 1 memory test is performed in the List 2 learning context), the groups that did not reactivate the original list did not commit intrusion errors (Experiment 2). In sum, we found that the intrusion effect critically depends on the presence of reactivation, discarding alternative interpretations of the results.