Reconsolidation of appetitive odor discrimination requires protein synthesis only when reactivation includes prediction error.

Abstract

Reconsolidation theory has supported the notion that active memory is vulnerable to the effects of an amnesic agent. An extension of reconsolidation theory posits that active memory, while necessary for creating vulnerability in memory, is not sufficient. Prediction error (i.e., when expectation is inconsistent with reality) may be a key factor in the destabilization of memory. The present study examined the role of prediction error in appetitive memory reconsolidation. Rats learned to dig in cups of scented sand to retrieve buried sweet cereal rewards. Forty-eight hours following acquisition, a single reactivation trial was given during which a prediction error or no prediction error was included. The prediction error consisted of a single extinction trial, while the no prediction error condition consisted of an additional reinforced trial. Cycloheximide (CHX; 1 mg/kg) or vehicle (VEH: distilled water; 1 mg/kg) was administered intraperitoneally immediately following reactivation. One week following reactivation, rats received 2 nonreinforced test trials. Results showed longer latencies to dig for rats that received CHX following a prediction error (CHX/PE) compared to rats that received VEH (VEH/PE) or did not receive a prediction error (CHX/NoPE or VEH/NoPE). These results add to a growing literature demonstrating that protein synthesis is necessary in appetitive memory reconsolidation only when reactivation includes a prediction error. (PsycINFO Database Record

Verbal manipulations of learning expectancy do not enhance reconsolidation

“…When there is a violation between expectation and actual events, referred to as a prediction error, both initial learning and extinction learning is strengthened [31]. As such, researchers have examined whether the expectation for new learning enhances reconsolidation by creating a prediction error [31][32][33][34][35]. Animal research supports the notion that prediction error enhances reconsolidation using pharmacological blockade methods to study reconsolidation [34].…”

“…As such, researchers have examined whether the expectation for new learning enhances reconsolidation by creating a prediction error [31][32][33][34][35]. Animal research supports the notion that prediction error enhances reconsolidation using pharmacological blockade methods to study reconsolidation [34]. Sevenster et al [32] examined if a prediction error was needed in order for a memory to return to a labile state and undergo reconsolidation in humans.…”

Rethinking Memory Impairments: Retrieval Failure

“…Similar results have been observed in other laboratories using different preparations(Briggs & Olson, 2013;Flavell & Lee, 2013;Merlo, Milton, Goozée, Theobald, & Everitt, 2014) and species (seeSevenster, Beckers, & Kindt, 2014, in humans; Turel, Prados, & Urcelay, 2020 in planaria; Merlo, Santos, Pedreira, & Merlo, 2020, in crabs), suggesting that these phenomena are highly conserved.to different amnesic interventions. The involvement of PE in cue-dependent amnesia has been consistently demonstrated in different species (e.g.,Sevenster, Beckers & Kindt, 2012, 2013, & Dudai, 2003Exton-McGuinness, Patton, Sacco, & Lee, 2014;Gotthard, Kenney, & Zucker, 2018;Jarome, Ferrara, Kwapis, & Helmstetter, 2015;Krawczyk, Fernández, Pedreira, & Boccia, 2017;Morris et al, 2006; Pedreira, Pérez-Cuesta, & Maldonado, 2004;Reichelt, Exton-McGuinness, & Lee, 2013;Rodriguez-Ortiz, De La Cruz, Gutiérrez, & Bermudez-Rattoni, 2005). For example, destabilization can result from a change in reward contingency from fixed to variable interval ratios of reinforcement in instrumental settings (e.g.,Exton-McGuinness, Patton, Sacco, & Lee, 2014;, a change in US intensity (equal or lower than in training; e.g.,Liu et al, 2014), the presentation of a trained CS followed by novel information (e.g., Rodriguez-Ortiz, De La Cruz,…”