Lecture 7- reconsolidation and retrieval induced forgetting

Question 1

what is reconsolidation

Answer 1

Standard consolidation model assumed that once memories were consolidated they were stable and could resist further changes
However, recent research suggests that reactivating a memory places it back in a labile state capable of being changed
Thus reactivated memories must be stabilized again—through reconsolidation

Question 2

what was the initial theory of reconsolidation

Answer 2

its a revival of an old theory by misanan - susceptibility to amnesia for an evejt is due to the state of memory for a trace of event

Question 3

what is the experimental criteria for reconsolidation

Answer 3

• reactivate a consolidated memory
• then administer treatment to alter reconsolidation
• test for retention after window (time period) for reconsolidation has closed

Question 4

what was early studies of recon studied on

Answer 4

animals

Question 5

why has it been hard to study recon in human

Answer 5

Finding evidence of reconsolidation in humans has been complicated
By methodology
Methods used in non-human animal research are too invasive or toxic for human research

Question 6

explain Squire, Slater, & Chace (1976) study about failure to replicate recon with humans

Answer 6

By early failure to replicate with humans
Squire, Slater, & Chace (1976)
Found ECT influenced recent memories more than remote ones but no effect of a reminder of previous learning
Though the main effects of amnesia were small in their study

Question 7

explain wlaker 2003 study about procedual memory in humans

Answer 7

Walker, Brakefield, Hobson, and Stickgold, (2003)
Day 1: learn a finger tapping sequence
Day 2: learn a second finger tapping sequence (interference)
Group A learned the second sequence after reactivating the memory for the day 1 sequence
Group B learned the second sequence without reactivating memory for the day 1 sequence
Day 3: tested for memory of the day 1 sequence
Group A made significantly more errors on the day 1 sequence compared to group B

= by reactivating memories put back into a moreplastci state

Question 8

explain Hupbach, Gomez, Hardt, & Nadel, (2007) study about episodic memory in humans

Answer 8

Hupbach, Gomez, Hardt, & Nadel, (2007)
Day 1: shown a list of 20 common objects
Day 2:
Group A: reminded of Day 1 objects then learned 20 new objects
Group B: no reminder of Day 1 objects then learned 20 new objects
Group C: no day 2 reminder or new list learning

Question 9

what are the limitations of recon

Answer 9

Suzuki et al. (2004)
Weaker memories are easier to change via reconsolidation
Stronger reactivation of the learned experience, the more changeable the memory becomes.

Sevenster et al. (2012)
Reactivation wasn’t enough for reconsolidation of a fear memory
New information also needed to be presented ( NEEDS TO BE RELEVANT)
The requirement of new information is consistent with hypothesized role of reconsolidation—memory updating
Alvares et al. (2013); Forcato et al. (2010); Lee (2008, 2009)

Question 10

WHAT WAS FOUND IN Taubenfeld et al. (2001) study of

dorsal hippocampus

Answer 10

Taubenfeld et al. (2001) with animals found that in dorsal hippocampus, protein synthesis is crucial for consolidation but not reconsolidation.
Concluded the two processes are different in that they require either different molecular mechanisms or different brain areas.

Question 11

give evidence that consolidation and reconsolidation are different proceses

Answer 11

Taubenfeld et al. (2001) with animals found that in dorsal hippocampus, protein synthesis is crucial for consolidation but not reconsolidation.
Concluded the two processes are different in that they require either different molecular mechanisms or different brain areas.

Other animal studies have shown consolidation and reconsolidation share common molecular mechanisms but are distinct processes which require, with some degree of overlap, the activation of different brain areas.

Question 12

what are the implications of reconsolidation

Answer 12

Enhancing memories
Can we make learning more efficient by helping reconsolidation along (spacing effects)?
Rodriquez et al. (2013)

Disrupting memories
Can we help those suffering from psychologically maladaptive memories (e.g. PTSD)?
Kroes et al. (2014); Schiller et al. (2010); Schwabe et al. (2014)

Question 13

how do recon explain flase memories

Answer 13

Enhancing memories
Can we make learning more efficient by helping reconsolidation along (spacing effects)?
Rodriquez et al. (2013)

Disrupting memories
Can we help those suffering from psychologically maladaptive memories (e.g. PTSD)?
Kroes et al. (2014); Schiller et al. (2010); Schwabe et al. (2014)

all shaped by discussions having - migh not be accurate
This might explain some of the false memory effects …

Question 14

how is retrieval induced forgettign examined

Answer 14

through retrieval practise paradigm
- Stage 1: Participants study category pairs
- Stage 2: Participants undertake ‘retrieval practice’
Or baseline condition with no retrieval practice
- Stage 3: Participants undertake recall of all the examples that they can remember seeing from that category

Question 15

what are the results from andersons study on retrieval induced forgetting

Answer 15

• The practiced items are remembered better but …
  The non-practiced category items are recalled worse than those that received no practice (baseline/control) (Anderson, 2003)
  Retrieval’ is required for the effect, i.e. retrieval specificity (see Anderson, 2003)
  During the retrieval practice stage … you need to actively recall the cued item …

Rather than passively view that pairing

• boost things practisd at the expense of the things which arent practised
• baseline = 50/50 recall

Question 16

what are the results from andersons study on retrieval induced forgetting

Answer 16

• The practiced items are remembered better but …
  The non-practiced category items are recalled worse than those that received no practice (baseline/control) (Anderson, 2003)
  Retrieval’ is required for the effect, i.e. retrieval specificity (see Anderson, 2003)
  During the retrieval practice stage … you need to actively recall the cued item …

Rather than passively view that pairing

• boost things practisd at the expense of the things which arent practised
• baseline = 50/50 recall

Question 17

what is retrieval specificity

Answer 17

‘Retrieval’ is required for the effect, i.e. retrieval specificity (see Anderson, 2003)

Question 18

what happened in the real world experi of recall by Tok and Bilu (Macrae & MacLeod, 1999

Answer 18

Participants were told facts about two fictitious islands: Tok and Bilu (Macrae & MacLeod, 1999)

Followed the standard retrieval practice paradigm
Recall for retrieved facts = 70%
Recall for non-retrieved facts (control/baseline) = 38%
Recall for non-retrieved related facts = 23% (RIF EFFECT)

Question 19

hwo does how u discuss a memory impact memorys- in Conroy and Salmon (2006)

Answer 19

ev for retrieval induced forgetting
Children undertook some activities (pirate-based games)
For several days after, children discussed the activities with the experimenters
Final day had to recall all the events
Memory less good for the non-discussed items compared to the no discussion condition (i.e. retrieval induced forgetting)

Question 20

what does anderson suggest about forgetting

Answer 20

Anderson (2015) suggests that forgetting may be contagious: “if a friend has forgotten some parts of an experience, then they will leave the forgotten parts out while reminiscing about it” (p. 250)

Question 21

Might there be some benefit in repressive governments only allowing discussion of positive events?

Answer 21

yes = masisve army 
no= hunger

Question 22

what effect does associative blocking have

Answer 22

Self-perpetuating effect

Question 23

explain associative blocking

Answer 23

Cue word (e.g. fruit) becomes more strongly associated with the competitor word (e.g. orange – following retrieval practice)
The cue word then repeatedly cues the competitor word (orange) because the association is strong and every time it is recalled it strengthens that association
Self-perpetuating effect

Consequently, it is harder to recall the target (non-studied related word, e.g. banana) due to interference of the competitor

ie - cue words association becomes stronger with practise
- eg when remember pair between fruit being with orange- becomes less associated with the word banana

Question 24

what is associative blcking premised on

Answer 24

strength dependent competition

Since the association between fruit-orange is stronger than the association between fruit-banana, orange is repeatedly recalled

Question 25

what was founf bu storm et al 2006

Answer 25

However, Storm et al. (2006) examined whether RIF is still found when the retrieval practice pair has an impossible answer …

This process cannot strengthen a competitor because there is not one …
… and yet RIF is still found
RIF is strength independent

Question 26

what were storms findings consistent and inconsistent with

Answer 26

inconsistent with associative blockig

consistent with retrieval induced forgetting
and interference dependent

Question 27

explain how RIF Mechanisms: Associative Unlearning explains cognitive efficiency

Answer 27

When you change your password and accidentally recall the original password you will benefit from punishing/ unlearning that association (cognitive efficiency

Question 28

explain the maladaptive area of inhibition

Answer 28

Sometimes it is maladaptive for a strong memory to be recalled
We then inhibit or suppress that memory
When undertaking retrieval practice …

… if an incorrect response (e.g. banana) comes to mind then we inhibit it

Question 29

what is inhibition

Answer 29

suppressing a memory

Question 30

Inhibition vs Associative Unlearning (i)

Answer 30

Has the non-studied item (e.g. banana) been truly inhibited (or has the association between fruit and banana being unlearnt)?
If inhibited: responding in general to banana should be reduced
The effect should generalise to novel cues
e.g. Monkey-______
This is called cue independence
If association unlearnt: forgetting should be confined to the pairings used during retrieval practice
e.g. Fruit-______
This is called cue dependence
Anderson and Spellman (1995) found cue-independent retrieval induced forgetting
Used a novel pairing that should cue the unstudied (potentially inhibited item) without cueing the practiced item

Therefore contradicts a competition account (based upon differing strengths of associations to cue) and supports inhibition

Question 31

what is attention dependent

Answer 31

Inhibition of memory leading to RIF appears attention dependent
Reduced retrieval induced forgetting when:
Participants undertake a secondary task (Anderson et al., 1994)
Concurrently listening to digits and responding when three consecutive odd digits
People with attention deficit disorder

Question 32

what is attention dependance consistent with

Answer 32

Consistent with the role of active inhibition

Question 33

explain Inhibition and RIF: Kuhl et al. (2007) (ii)

Answer 33

Inhibition supported by the neuroimaging data
Retrieval practice paradigm with fMRI (Kuhl et al., 2007)

As retrieval practice progressed there was less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex and both the dorsal and vetrolateral prefrontal cortex
Perhaps consistent with initial inhibition of the highly accessible (but incorrect) items during retrieval practice

The level of deactivation in the PFC correlated with the degree of RIF for the non-practiced but related items (e.g. banana)
Indicates that early successful inhibition during practice retrieval leads to subsequent forgetting at test