Mechanisms of Memory Updating: State Dependency vs. Reconsolidation

Abstract

Reactivating a memory trace has been argued to put it in a fragile state where it must undergo a stabilization process known as reconsolidation. During this process, memories are thought to be susceptible to interference and can be updated with new information. In the spatial context paradigm, memory updating has been shown to occur when new information is presented in the same spatial context as old information, an effect attributed to a reconsolidation process. However, the integration concept holds that memory change can only occur when reactivation and test states are the same, similar to a state-dependent effect. Thus, in human episodic memory, memory updating should only be found when state is the same across the study, reactivation, and test sessions. We investigated whether memory updating can be attributed to state dependency in two experiments using mood as a state. We found evidence of memory updating only when mood was the same across all sessions of the experiments, lending support to the integration concept and posing a challenge to a reconsolidation explanation.

The time window of reconsolidation: A replication

“…If there is a mismatch, memory updating will not be found. Evidence in support of this idea has been found in nonhuman animals (Gisquet-Verrier et al, 2015 ) and humans (Kiley & Parks, 2022 ). Despite that support, the current data are challenging because one tenet of the integration account is that memory updating is a rapid process that does not require a delay between Day 2 reactivation and the final test (see Bridge & Voss, 2014 , for an example in a different paradigm).…”

“…There are challenges to the reconsolidation theory, though (Capelo et al, 2018 ; Gisquet-Verrier et al, 2015 ; Gisquet-Verrier & Riccio, 2018 ; Kiley & Parks, 2022 ; Klingmüller et al, 2017 ; Sederberg et al, 2011 ), most of which argue that the memory updating found in Hupbach et al’s ( 2007 ) paradigm is attributable to context-related retroactive interference or encoding specificity and not a distinct neurobiological process. However, these alternatives struggle to explain the time-dependent nature of memory updating (but see Sederberg et al, 2011 ).…”