Postretrieval new learning does not reliably induce human memory updating via reconsolidation

Abstract

Reconsolidation theory proposes that retrieval can destabilize an existing memory trace, opening a time-dependent window during which that trace is amenable to modification. Support for the theory is largely drawn from nonhuman animal studies that use invasive pharmacological or electroconvulsive interventions to disrupt a putative postretrieval restabilization ("reconsolidation") process. In human reconsolidation studies, however, it is often claimed that postretrieval new learning can be used as a means of "updating" or "rewriting" existing memory traces. This proposal warrants close scrutiny because the ability to modify information stored in the memory system has profound theoretical, clinical, and ethical implications. The present study aimed to replicate and extend a prominent 3-day motor-sequence learning study [Walker MP, Brakefield T, Hobson JA, Stickgold R (2003) Nature 425(6958): 616-620] that is widely cited as a convincing demonstration of human reconsolidation. However, in four direct replication attempts (n = 64), we did not observe the critical impairment effect that has previously been taken to indicate disruption of an existing motor memory trace. In three additional conceptual replications (n = 48), we explored the broader validity of reconsolidation-updating theory by using a declarative recall task and sequences similar to phone numbers or computer passwords. Rather than inducing vulnerability to interference, memory retrieval appeared to aid the preservation of existing sequence knowledge relative to a no-retrieval control group. These findings suggest that memory retrieval followed by new learning does not reliably induce human memory updating via reconsolidation.reconsolidation | sequence learning | memory updating | forgetting | replication

Modification of episodic memories by novel learning: a failed replication study

“…However, our study joins a growing number of other studies showing failures to replicate the reconsolidation effect using behavioural manipulations (e.g. Golkar, Bellander, Olsson, & Öhman, 2012; Hardwicke, Taqi, & Shanks, 2016; Kindt & Soeter, 2013; Soeter & Kindt, 2011; Wichert et al, 2011) or pharmacological manipulations (e.g. Bos, Beckers, & Kindt, 2014; Wood et al, 2015).…”

“…Bos, Beckers, & Kindt, 2014; Wood et al, 2015). The study of Hardwicke et al (2016) makes a particularly strong case against reconsolidation effects in humans, because it attempted to directly and conceptually replicate the results of a study that has been frequently referred to as a convincing demonstration of human reconsolidation in procedural memory (Walker, Brakefield, Hobson, & Stickgold, 2003), but was unsuccessful in seven experiments. Hardwicke et al did not find any evidence for the impairment effects predicted by reconsolidation theory.…”

The Computational Nature of Memory Modification

“…A similar situation exists for instrumental memories: some studies have shown that instrumental memories undergo post-retrieval modification (Fuchs, Bell, Ramirez, Eaddy, & Su, 2009;Milton, Lee, Butler, Gardner, & Everitt, 2008), while others have not (Hernandez & Kelley, 2004). The literature on post-retrieval modification of human procedural memories has also been recently thrown into doubt (Hardwicke, Taqi, & Shanks, 2016). There are many differences between these studies that could account for such discrepancies, including the type of amnestic agent, how the amnestic agent is administered (systemically or locally), the type of reinforcer, and the timing of stimuli.…”

An Update on Memory Reconsolidation Updating

“…If memory reactivation combined with pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatment does not reliably induce any memory impairment, then the rationale for clinical exploitation may be flawed. As a recent example, the original demonstration that human motor memory could be disrupted by combining memory reactivation with interference [13] was not replicated in a series of direct and conceptual replication attempts within a single extensive study [71]. While perhaps it remains unclear whether human motor memories undergo reconsolidation, there are very many studies showing reconsolidation effects in other settings [72], particularly for fear memories.…”