Recovery of memory after reminder: Evidence for two forms of retrieval deficit induced by ECS

Abstract

Using a one-trial fear-conditioning paradigm and ECS, three experiments contrasted the generalization hypothesis with the dissociation/retrieval failure hypothesis in predicting the outcome of reminder treatment given to ECS subjects evidencing different degrees of amnesia at the time of treatment. Experiment I showed a small but reliable increase in retention when reminder was administered to ECS subjects showing strong amnesia. Experiment II showed virtually no effect of reminder when administered to ECS subjects showing partial amnesia. Experiment III provided evidence that the small amount of memory recovery obtained in Experiment I resulted from an interaction between memorial and confounding variables. With confounding variables controlled, reminder induced a very substantial recovery of memory in ECS subjects. These results are contrary to the generalization hypothesis but are consistent with the dissociation/retrieval failure hypothesis that ECS results in two forms of memory retrieval deficit which interact, under some conditions, to determine the degree of retention observed following reminder.

Memory retrieval deficits based upon altered contextual cues: A paradox.

“…Administration of noncontingent footshock (NCFS) prior to testing has been shown to reduce performance deficits from a variety of sources (e.g. ( DeVietti & Bucy, 1975;Miller & Springer, 1972;Rescorla & Heth, 1975;Spear & Parsons, 1976). Presumably, for aversively motivated learning, the footshock presents a sufficient proportion of the attributes encoded at training to permit retrieval of the target memory.…”

Chunking and consolidation: A theoretical synthesis of semantic networks, configuring in conditioning, S-R versus cognitive learning, normal forgetting, the amnesic syndrome, and the hippocampal arousal system.

“…As in humans, hippocampal lesions produce permanent AA (though there is considerable debate concerning the similarity of the human and animal AA-discussed in a subsequent section) and a small RA (Bohdanecka, Bohdanecky, Si Jarvik, 1967; Click & Greenstein, 1973;Hirsh, 1974;Isaacson, 1974;Weiskrantz, 1966). Although truly spontaneous recovery from RA with the passage of time has only occasionally been observed in animals, most of the physiological recovery agents (e.g., stimulants such as amphetamines and corticosteroids, or saline injections into the hippocampus) and psychological recovery agents (stimuli involved in the unavailable learning experience) are more effective in producing recovery from RA, the more time that has elapsed since the offset of the amnesic agent (DeVietti & Bucy, 1975;DeVietti & Hopfer, 1974).…”

Noncontingent exposure to the unconditioned stimulus attenuates state-dependent memory loss

“…Indeed, much of the research literature seems to assume that SDR is based entirely on altered pharmacological stimuli. But the finding that noncontingent US exposure can alleviate amnesia, as seen in Experiment 1 and elsewhere (DeVietti & Bucy, 1975;Hinderliter et aI., 1975;Mactutus, Ferek, & Riccio, 1980;Miller & Springer, 1973, encourages the view that a similar outcome might be obtained in SDR. The aim of Experiments 2 and 3 was to determine whether noncontingent US exposure prior to testing would alleviate the deficit produced by a shift in pharmacological state-that is, drug to nondrug.…”