Hupbach, Almut

English

PubMed

Almut Hupbach

Frontiers - Publisher Connector

BEHAVIORAL NEUROSCIENCE
cific type of memory alteration (impair-
ment, extinction, incorporation of new 
 information) is dependent upon the relative 
localization vs. distribution of the underlying 
memory representations. Fear conditioning 
and procedural memory are supported by 
rather localized brain systems (fear condition-
ing: basolateral amygdala, e.g., LeDoux, 2000; 
motor sequence learning: basal ganglia, e.g., 
Packard and Knowlton, 2002). In contrast, 
episodic memories depend on the interplay 
between the hippocampal proper and wide-
spread neocortical areas (see, e.g., Dickerson 
and Eichenbaum, 2010, for a review). Schiller 
and Phelps propose the following principle: 
the more localized a representation, the more 
likely behavioral interference will cause mem-
ory impairment; whereas, the more distrib-
uted the underlying memory representations, 
the more likely will behavioral interference 
result in integration of the new information 
into the reactivated memory.
I suggest an alternative explanation 
of the different outcomes in the differ-
ent paradigms used. I would like to argue 
that the reviewed studies do not only dif-
fer with respect to the relative localization 
vs. distribution of brain systems involved, 
but also with respect to how the potentially 
interfering material that is presented after 
reactivation relates to the content of the 
original memory that reactivation renders 
labile. More specifically, although all of the 
reviewed studies use behavioral interference 
paradigms, the studies differ in the degree 
with which the newly presented informa-
tion competes with the previously encoded 
information. In fear conditioning, the new 
information (“no shock”) is in direct com-
petition with the previously learned contin-
gency (“shock”), i.e., an organism cannot 
display both responses simultaneously 
(fear and no fear; although, interestingly, 
there is a dissociation between the physi-
ological response and explicit knowledge of 
the contingency). In procedural memory, 
The specific outcomes of reactivation-induced memory 
changes depend on the degree of competition between 
old and new information
Almut Hupbach*
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA
*Correspondence: hupbach@lehigh.edu
A commentary on
Does reconsolidation occur in humans?
by Schiller, D., and Phelps, E. A. (2011). 
Front Behav Neurosci 5: 24. doi: 10.3389/
fnbeh.2011.00024
Schiller and Phelps review the current state 
of knowledge on reconsolidation in human 
memory. Reconsolidation as a hypothetical 
memory re-stabilization process following 
memory reactivation is especially difficult to 
study in humans, because most pharmaco-
logical agents shown to impact reconsolida-
tion in animals are not safe for human use. 
Thus, most human studies employ behavioral 
interference paradigms, i.e., after reactivat-
ing a memory (or not), potential interfer-
ing information is presented. Depending 
on the paradigm used (fear conditioning, 
procedural, or episodic memory tasks), new 
information either impairs the reactivated old 
memory, or the new information gets incor-
porated into the reactivated memory. For 
example, in procedural memory, the learning 
of a new finger-tapping sequence after reacti-
vating a previously learned sequence impairs 
long-term memory of the first sequence 
(Walker et al., 2003). Similarly, in fear con-
ditioning, extinction training that is adminis-
tered 10 min after the reactivation of the fear 
memory leads to long-term extinction of the 
fear response (skin conductance response), 
while leaving the explicit knowledge of cue–
shock relationship unaltered (Schiller et al., 
2010). And in episodic memory, learning a 
new set of objects after reactivating memory 
for a previously learned set leads to incorpora-
tion of new objects into memory for the old 
set (Hupbach et al., 2007).
Schiller and Phelps introduce an inter-
esting explanation for the variable effects 
of post-reactivation interference treatments 
on subsequent memory performance. Their 
approach rests on the notion that the spe-
the new finger-tapping sequence involves 
movement of the same fingers, and thus, 
might interfere directly with the motor 
program established for the old sequence. 
Again, both sequences cannot be performed 
at the same time (although there is the pos-
sibility that new sequence elements intrude 
into the old sequence, but Walker et al., 2003 
do not report whether the errors consist of 
such intrusions). Hence, in both the fear 
conditioning and the procedural memory 
paradigm, the new information negatively 
affects the old, reactivated memory (extinc-
tion or impairment). In contrast, in the epi-
sodic memory task used by Hupbach et al. 
(2007, 2009), the second set of objects that 
is learned after reactivation is conceptu-
ally unrelated to the previously learned 
set. Hence, the new set does not directly 
compete with the old set, and thus, does 
not impair memory for the old set directly. 
Rather, items of both sets can “coexist,” and 
elements of the new memory can get incor-
porated into the old reactivated memory.
Staying within the framework of the 
reconsolidation account, the alternative view 
presented here emphasizes competition vs. 
integration of old and new information dur-
ing re-storage, and not during retrieval, i.e., 
during response generation. It is assumed 
that the reactivated memory is altered, a 
view that has recently been criticized by 
proponents of computational models of 
episodic memory retrieval (e.g., Sederberg 
et al., 2011). Future studies are needed to 
address the not-so new question of whether 
(human) memories can indeed be modified, 
and whether the specific direction of altera-
tion is dependent upon the brain systems 
involved and/or the specific relationship 
between the old and the new information.
RefeRences
Dickerson, B. C., and Eichenbaum, H. (2010). The epi-
sodic memory system: neurocircuitry and disorders. 
Neuropsychopharmacology 35, 86–104.
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org June 2011 | Volume 5 | Article 33 | 1
General Commentary
published: 23 June 2011
doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2011.00033
Received: 23 May 2011; accepted: 14 June 2011; published 
online: 23 June 2011.
Citation: Hupbach A (2011) The specific outcomes of reac-
tivation-induced memory changes depend on the degree 
of competition between old and new information. Front. 
Behav. Neurosci. 5:33. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2011.00033
Copyright © 2011 Hupbach. This is an open-access article 
subject to a non-exclusive license between the authors and 
Frontiers Media SA, which permits use, distribution and 
reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors 
and source are credited and other Frontiers conditions are 
complied with.
Schiller, D., Monfils, M. H., Raio, C. M., Johnson, D. C., 
LeDoux, J. E., and Phelps, E. A. (2010). Preventing 
the return of fear in humans using reconsolidation 
update mechanisms. Nature 463, 49–53.
Sederberg, P. B., Gershman, S. J., Polyn, S., and Norman, 
K. A. (2011). Human memory reconsolidation can be 
explained using the temporal context model. Psychon. 
Bull. Rev. 18, 455–468.
Walker, M. P, Brakefield, T., Hobson, J. A., and Stickgold, 
R. (2003). Dissociable stages of human memory 
consolidation and reconsolidation. Nature 425, 
616–620.
Hupbach, A., Gomez, R., Hardt, O., and Nadel, L. (2007). 
Reconsolidation of episodic memories: a subtle 
reminder triggers integration of new information. 
Learn. Mem. 14, 47–53.
Hupbach, A., Gomez, R., and Nadel, L. (2009). Episodic 
memory reconsolidation: updating or source confu-
sion? Memory 17, 502–510.
LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annu. 
Rev. Neuosci. 23, 155–184.
Packard, M. G., and Knowlton, B. J. (2002). Learning and 
memory functions of the basal ganglia. Annu. Rev. 
Neurosci. 25, 563–593.
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org June 2011 | Volume 5 | Article 33 | 2
Hupbach Parameters of human memory reconsolidation


The Specific Outcomes of Reactivation-Induced Memory Changes Depend on the Degree of Competition between Old and New Information

Almut eHupbach

Directory of Open Access Journals

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience

The specific outcomes of reactivation-induced memory changes depend on the degree of competition between old and new information.  Commentary on Schiller &amp; Phelps, Does reconsolidation exist in humans?

Crossref

http://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%227f365b1280b940fb8f15b0c99ccc86b5%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%7D

The Specific Outcomes of Reactivation-Induced Memory Changes Depend on the Degree of Competition between Old and New Information

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Frontiers - Publisher Connector

Frontiers - Publisher Connector

Directory of Open Access Journals

Crossref