Brain correlates of memory reconsolidation: A role for the TPJ

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the process by which new experiences reactivate and potentially update old memories. Such memory reconsolidation appears dependent on the extent to which current experience deviates from what is predicted by the reactivated memory (i.e. prediction error). If prediction error is low, the reactivated memory is likely to be updated with new information. If it is high, however, a new, separate, memory is more likely to be formed. The temporal parietal junction TPJ has been shown across a broad range of content areas (attention, social cognition, decision making and episodic memory) to be sensitive to the degree to which current information violates the observer's expectations - in other words, prediction error. In the current paper, we investigate whether the level of TPJ activation during encoding predicts if the encoded information will be used to form a new memory or update a previous memory. We find that high TPJ activation predicts new memory formation. In a secondary analysis, we examine whether reactivation strength - which we assume leads to a strong memory-based prediction - mediates the likelihood that a given individual will use new information to form a new memory rather than update a previous memory. Individuals who strongly reactivate previous memories are less likely to update them than individuals who weakly reactivate them. We interpret this outcome as indicating that strong predictions lead to high prediction error, which favors new memory formation rather than updating of a previous memory.

Behavioral Reconsolidation Interference with Episodic Memory Within-Subjects is Elusive

“…It should be noted that in several of the prior studies reporting reminder-potentiated reconsolidation interference, such effects were expressed not in forgetting of studied materials, but in intrusion effectsessentially source memory failures, in which items from distractor lists are reported as belonging to target lists (Hupbach et al, 2007;Hupbach, Hardt, Gomez, & Nadel, 2008;Hupbach, Gomez, & Nadel, 2009;Simon, Gómez, Nadel, & Scalf, 2017;Wichert et al, 2013). Hupbach and colleagues have argued that such intrusions do not only reflect source memory failures, since they were generally unidirectional (i.e., later objects were reported as part of the activated-interfered list, but not vice versa; Hupbach et al, 2009).…”

Perceived Gaze Direction Modulates Neural Processing of Prosocial Decision Making

“…In our study, the interaction between perceived gaze direction and social decision making may also be influenced by the level of empathy in participants which we unfortunately did not measure. Second, studies have shown that TPJ is sensitive to prediction error, which means the degree to which current information is inconsistent with expectation, in various domains including social interaction (Behrens et al, 2008 ; Simon et al, 2017 ). People in multiple-rounds social interactions may employ TPJ to guide behaviors based on previous experiences.…”

Behavioral reconsolidation interference with episodic memory within-subjects is elusive

“…It should be noted that in several of the prior studies reporting reminder-potentiated reconsolidation interference, such effects were expressed not in forgetting of studied materials, but in intrusion effects – essentially source memory failures, in which items from distractor lists are reported as belonging to target lists ( Hupbach et al, 2007 , Hupbach et al, 2008 Hupbach et al, 2009 , Simon et al, 2017 , Wichert et al, 2013 ). Hupbach and colleagues have argued that such intrusions do not only reflect source memory failures, since they were generally unidirectional (i.e., later objects were reported as part of the activated-interfered list, but not vice versa; Hupbach et al, 2009 ).…”