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.     

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.     

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.     

Two critical periods of protein and glycoprotein synthesis in memory consolidation for visual categorization learning in chicks

A protein synthesis inhibitor, anisomycin (ANI), and an inhibitor of glycoprotein synthesis, 2-deoxygalactose (2-D-gal), were used to investigate memory consolidation following visual categorization training in 2-day-old chicks. ANI (0.6 micromole/chick) and 2-D-gal (40 micromoles/chick) were injected intracerebrally at different time intervals from 1 hr before to 23 hr after the training. Retention was tested 24 hr post-training. Both ANI and 2-D-gal injections revealed two periods of memory sensitivity to pharmacological intervention. ANI impaired retention when injected from 5 min before to 30 min after the training or from 4 hr to 5 hr post-training, thus demonstrating that consolidation of long-term memory in this task requires two periods of protein synthesis. 2-D-Gal first produced an amnesia when it was injected in the interval from 5 min before to 5 min after the training. Injections made between 5 min and 5 hr post-training were without effect on the retention. The second period of memory impairment by 2-D-gal started at 5 hr post-training and lasted until 21 hr after the training. Administration of 2-D-gal made 23 hr after the training did not influence retention in the test at either 24 hr or 26 hr. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that two waves of protein and glycoprotein synthesis are necessary for the formation of long-term memory. The prolonged duration of performance impairment by 2-D-gal in the present task might reflect an extended memory consolidation period for a categorization form of learning.     

One retrieval trial induces reconsolidation in an appetitive learning paradigm in honeybees (Apis mellifera)

Combining memory retrieval with the application of a protein synthesis-inhibitor leads to an amnestic effect that is referred to as the reconsolidation phenomenon. Several behavioural studies demonstrate that only a few or weak retrieval trials (that do not result in significant extinction) lead to this phenomenon. In contrast, many trials (that result in significant extinction) combined with a protein synthesis inhibitor result in an inhibition of the extinction memory. Based on these findings it was suggested that extinction is the boundary condition for reconsolidation: when extinction is induced the consolidation of the extinction memory is the dominant process. Recently we were not able to confirm this hypothesis in the honeybee (Apis mellifera): We did not find the reconsolidation phenomenon after one retrieval trial, but demonstrated reconsolidation after five retrieval trials that led to extinction. To exclude that this observation resembles a special case in insects we here wanted to know if one retrieval trial induces reconsolidation as it has been demonstrated before in many other species. To do so we used experimental parameters that had been used before to demonstrate consolidation in the honeybee with the exception that this time the protein synthesis-inhibitor was applied 1 h after one memory retrieval instead after acquisition. We thereby demonstrate the reconsolidation phenomenon after one retrieval trial but only when using the doubled dose of protein synthesis-inhibitor that has been used to inhibit consolidation.     

Repeated reminders inrease the speed of memory retrieval by 3‐month‐old infants

In two experiments, we examined the effect of repeated reminder treatments on the speed of memory retrieval by 3‐month‐old human infants. Infants were trained for two consecutive days to kick their feet to produce movement in an overhead mobile. Infants in the one‐reminder condition received a 3 min reminder treatment 13 days after the conclusion of training. Infants in the two‐reminder condition received one 3 min reminder treatment 6 days after the conclusion of training and a second reminder treatment 7 days later (i.e. 13 days following the conclusion of training). Infants in the no‐reminder control condition were not exposed to the reminder prior to the long‐term retention test. In the absence of a reminder treatment, infants exhibited complete forgetting during the long‐term test. Infants exposed to one reminder exhibited retention when tested 24 h after their only reminder, but not when tested earlier. Infants exposed to two reminder treatments, on the other hand, exhibited retention when tested 1, 4 or 24 h after their second reminder treatment. We conclude that the opportunity to retrieve the memory on a prior occasion facilitated subsequent memory retrieval.     

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.     

Inhibition of matrix metalloproteinase activity disrupts reconsolidation but not consolidation of a fear memory

The reconsolidation hypothesis posits that memories that have been reactivated can be either enhanced or disrupted by pharmacological manipulation. Synaptic plasticity is presumed to underlie the reconsolidation process. Matrix metalloproteinases are proteins that regulate the extracellular matrix involved in plasticity events, and these proteins have recently been shown to influence learning and memory. However, all studies on the role of matrix metalloproteinases in learning and memory have employed tasks that rely on contextual cues. The goal of this study was to determine the extent to which FN-439 would disrupt the consolidation and/or reconsolidation of a fear memory associated with a conditioned stimulus that signaled tone-shock pairings and that was independent of contextual cues. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were given infusions of FN-439 (35 microg intracerebroventricular) 30 min prior to conditioning (tone-shock paired association) or 30 min prior to a single reactivation session given 24h after conditioning. Administration of FN-439 did not disrupt consolidation of the freezing response when the tone (conditioned stimulus) was presented. In contrast, FN-439 infusion disrupted reconsolidation of the fear memory in a reactivation-dependent manner. The reduced freezing behavior was not due to a decrease in general anxiety levels, since FN-439 had no effect on the percent of open-arm time or open-arm entries in an elevated-plus maze task. Thus, we demonstrated for the first time that matrix metalloproteinase inhibition in the brain is capable of disrupting the reconsolidation of a tone-shock association memory that does not depend on contextual cues. The finding that a fear response to a previously paired conditioned stimulus can be disrupted by treatment with an MMP inhibitor during a single reactivation session suggests that this class of compounds may have therapeutic potential for posttraumatic stress disorder and/or simple phobias.     

Administration of corticosterone after memory reactivation disrupts subsequent retrieval of a contextual conditioned fear memory: dependence upon training intensity

Reactivation of stabilized memories returns them to a labile state and causes them to undergo extinction or reconsolidation processes. Although it is well established that administration of glucocorticoids after training enhance consolidation of contextual fear memories, but their effects on post-retrieval processes are not known. In this study, we first asked whether administration of corticosterone after memory reactivation would modulate subsequent expression of memory in rats. Additionally, we examined whether this modulatory action would depend upon the strength of the memory. We also tested the effect of propranolol after memory reactivation. Adult male Wistar rats were trained in a fear conditioning system using moderate (0.4 mA) or high shock (1.5 mA) intensities. For reactivation, rats were returned to the chamber for 90 s 24h later. Immediately after reactivation, rats were injected with corticosterone (1, 3 or 10mg/kg) or vehicle. One, 7 and 14 days after memory reactivation, rats were returned to the context for 5 min, and freezing behavior was scored. The findings indicated that corticosterone when injected after memory reactivation had no significant effect on recall of a moderate memory, but it impaired recall of a strong memory at a dose of 3mg/kg. Propranolol (5mg/kg) given after the reactivation treatment produced a modest impairment that persisted over three test sessions. Further, the results showed that corticosterone, but not propranolol deficit was reversed by a reminder shock. These findings provide evidence that administration of glucocorticoids following memory reactivation reduces subsequent retrieval of strong, but not moderate, contextual conditioned fear memory likely via acceleration of memory extinction. On the other hand, propranolol-induced amnesia may result from blockade of reconsolidation process. Further studies are needed to determine the underlying mechanisms.     

Memantine facilitates memory consolidation and reconsolidation in the day-old chick

Memantine is a non-competitive N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that has been approved for the treatment of the cognitive deficits noted in Alzheimer's disease. While there is a body of research that supports memantine's facilitative action upon memory compromise, this series of studies aimed to investigate the effects of this drug in healthy animals with intact memory functioning. A 0.1 mM dose of memantine injected immediately after a weakly aversive training event (i.e. 20% v/v methyl anthranilate) was found to enhance passive avoidance learning for this event in day-old chicks up to 24 h following training. The same dose of memantine was also observed to enhance memory for the training event when it was administered in conjunction with a reminder trial. These results suggest that memantine is capable of facilitating both memory consolidation as well as memory reconsolidation. It was concluded that memantine's mechanism may involve the short-term or intermediate memory phases of the Gibbs and Ng model of memory, and that the current findings represent enhancement of intact memory, rather than amelioration of memory compromise.     

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.     

Inhibition of mTOR by rapamycin in the amygdala or hippocampus impairs formation and reconsolidation of inhibitory avoidance memory

Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), a central regulator of protein synthesis in neurons, has been implicated in synaptic plasticity and memory. Here we show that mTOR inhibition by rapamycin in the basolateral amygdala (BLA) or dorsal hippocampus (DH) impairs both formation and reconsolidation of memory for inhibitory avoidance (IA) in rats. Male Wistar rats received bilateral infusions of vehicle or rapamycin into the BLA or DH before or after IA training or retrieval. Memory retention was tested at different time points after drug infusion. Rapamycin impaired long-term IA retention when given before or immediately after training or retrieval into the BLA. When infused into the DH, rapamycin produced memory impairment when given before training or immediately after retrieval. The impairing effects of post-retrieval rapamycin required memory retrieval and were not reversed by a reminder shock. The results provide the first evidence that mTOR in the BLA and DH might play a role in IA memory reconsolidation.     

Infusion of protein synthesis inhibitors in the entorhinal cortex blocks consolidation but not reconsolidation of object recognition memory

Memory consolidation and reconsolidation require the induction of protein synthesis in some areas of the brain. Here, we show that infusion of the protein synthesis inhibitors anisomycin, emetine and cycloheximide in the entorhinal cortex immediately but not 180 min or 360 min after training in an object recognition learning task hinders long-term memory retention without affecting short-term memory or behavioral performance. Inhibition of protein synthesis in the entorhinal cortex after memory reactivation involving either a combination of familiar and novel objects or two familiar objects does not affect retention. Our data suggest that protein synthesis in the entorhinal cortex is necessary early after training for consolidation of object recognition memory. However, inhibition of protein synthesis in this cortical region after memory retrieval does not seem to affect the stability of the recognition trace.     

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.     

Amygdala or hippocampus inactivation after retrieval induces temporary memory deficit

The hypothesis that memory is stored through a single stage of consolidation that results in a stable and lasting long-term memory has been challenged by the proposition that reactivation of a memory induces reconsolidation of the memory. The reconsolidation hypothesis is supported by evidence that, under some conditions, post-retrieval treatments affecting amygdala and hippocampus functioning impair subsequent retention performance. We now report that repeated retention testing attenuates the performance impairment induced by post-retrieval reversible inactivation of the amygdala and hippocampus of rats induced by tetrodotoxin. These findings challenge the reconsolidation hypothesis and suggest that the post-retrieval retention performance impairment is best explained as due to temporary retrieval failure.     

Reconsolidation in humans opens up declarative memory to the entrance of new information

A consolidated memory recalled by a reminder enters a vulnerability phase (labilization), followed by a process of stabilization (reconsolidation). Several authors have suggested that the labilization of the consolidated memory makes the incorporation of new information possible. Here, we demonstrate updating in the framework of memory declarative reconsolidation in humans by giving an opportune verbal instruction. Volunteers learn an association between five cue-syllables (L1) and their respective response-syllables. Twenty-four hours later, the paired-associate verbal memory is labilized by exposing the subjects to the reminder, and then they receive the verbal Instruction of adding three new cue-response syllables (INFO) with their respective responses to the former list of five. The new information is incorporated into the single former L1-memory and both INFO and L1 are successfully retrieved on the third day. However, when the Instruction is not preceded by a proper reminder, or when the instruction omits the order of adding the INFO into the former L1-memory, we observed interference in retrieval of both the original and the new information, suggesting that they are encoded independently and coexist as separate memories.     

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.     

Midlife decline in declarative memory consolidation is correlated with a decline in slow wave sleep

Sleep architecture as well as memory function are strongly age dependent. Slow wave sleep (SWS), in particular, decreases dramatically with increasing age, starting already beyond the age of 30. SWS normally predominates during early nocturnal sleep and is implicated in declarative memory consolidation. However, the consequences of changes in sleep across the life span for sleep-associated memory consolidation have not been evaluated so far. Here, we compared declarative memory consolidation (for word-pair associates) during sleep in young and middle-aged healthy humans. The age groups (18–25 vs. 48–55 yr) did not differ with regard to learning performance before retention periods that covered, respectively, the first and second half of nocturnal sleep. However, after early retention sleep, where the younger subjects showed distinctly more SWS than the middle-aged (62.3 ± 3.7 min vs. 18.4 ± 7.2 min, P < 0.001), retrieval of the word pairs in the middle-aged was clearly worse than in the young (P < 0.001). In contrast, declarative memory retention did not differ between groups after late sleep, where retention was generally worse than after early sleep (P = 0.005). Retention of declarative memories was the same in both age groups when sleep periods containing equal amounts of SWS were compared, i.e., across late sleep in the young and across early sleep in the middle-aged. Our results indicate a decline in sleep-associated declarative memory consolidation that develops already during midlife and is associated with a decrease in early nocturnal SWS.