Reminder induced by training cues and stimulation of the mesencephalic reticular formation

DeVietti, Terry L.; Kirkpatrick, Brian R.

doi:10.3758/bf03326743

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present data, as well as two other reports from our laboratory demonstrating a differential reminder effect in TSFS/ECS and TWFS animals (DeVietti & Haynes, 1975;DeVietti & Kirkpatrick, 1978), suggest that reminder increased retention in ECS animals by encouraging the return of a stored, but normally unretrievable, memory rather than by summating with a weak memory trace.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…We did not expect to find a strong influence of the reminder tone in TSFS/ECS animals in the present study, as we had tested for this effect in two previous investigations and failed to obtain unequivocal evidence that the reminder tone alone increased test performance in ECS animals (DeVietti & Hopfer, 1974;DeVietti & Kirkpatrick, 1978).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 58%

“…The parallel effects of reminder are consistent with the generalization hypothesis, but, as pointed out earlier (DeVietti & Haynes, 1975), this argument is by analogy, and parallel improvements in retention performance could result from different mechanisms operating in the two groups instead of from a common mechanism. Our laboratory has reported two experiments in which reminder treatments increased retention performance in ECS-treated animals but had little, if any, effect on the performance of weakly trained animals (DeVietti & Haynes, 1975;DeVietti & Kirkpatrick, 1978). In both of these experiments, however, the reminder treatment conditions were arranged in such a way that one would be hard pressed to argue that these reminder events did not constitute a learning trial, inasmuch as the reminder treatment consisted of the presentation of either prior training cues followed by footshock 1 h later (DeVietti & Haynes, 1975) or training cues followed immediately by stimulation of the mesencephalic reticular formation (MRF) (DeVietti & Kirkpatrick, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our laboratory has reported two experiments in which reminder treatments increased retention performance in ECS-treated animals but had little, if any, effect on the performance of weakly trained animals (DeVietti & Haynes, 1975;DeVietti & Kirkpatrick, 1978). In both of these experiments, however, the reminder treatment conditions were arranged in such a way that one would be hard pressed to argue that these reminder events did not constitute a learning trial, inasmuch as the reminder treatment consisted of the presentation of either prior training cues followed by footshock 1 h later (DeVietti & Haynes, 1975) or training cues followed immediately by stimulation of the mesencephalic reticular formation (MRF) (DeVietti & Kirkpatrick, 1978). If these treatments resulted in new learning, the meaning of the differential results obtained between animals that received ECS and weakly trained animals is not as clear as one might like.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present experiment, we used this general approach by preceding the presentation of the tone used in original training by stimulation of the MRF as reminder and testing the effects of this procedure in ECS-treated and weakly trained animals. Previous research (DeVietti & Kirkpatrick, 1978) had demonstrated that the presentation of the tone followed by MRF stimulation was an effective reminder treatment in ECS animals. In addition, heart rate was recorded during the reminder session in order to gain some insight into the degree of autonomic activation resulting from this procedure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Heart-rate reactivity to reminder treatment predicts test performance in rats given ECS following training

Wittman

DeVietti

1980

Psychobiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments compared the capacity of reminder treatments to modify retention performance in rats either strongly trained and given ECS or weakly trained and given no ECS. Heart rate was monitored during the reminder sessions. In Experiment 1, the factorial combinations of stimulation of the mesencephalic reticular formation (MRF) (present, absent) followed by the presentation of the cue originally paired with foots hock in training, a tone (present, absent), were evaluated as reminder stimuli. Results indicated that both groups showed decreased heart rate to the presentation of the tone in the reminder session. However, in the retention test, ECS animals given tone reminder showed increased retention, whereas weakly trained animals showed decreased retention. Experiment 2 used a shorter interval to onset of the tone in the reminder session. Heart rate to the reminder tone again decreased in weakly trained animals, but no change was obtained in ECS animals. No change in test performance as a result of reminder was noted in either group. These results support the notion that ECS following training influences memory retrieval systems and suggest that heartrate reactivity may be used to predict the behavioral effects of reminder treatment in ECS animals.Reminder treatments interpolated between training and a retention test quite consistently increase retention performance in animals given an amnesic treatment following training. In most instances, this reminder effect is not obtained in, for example, animals trained but not given amnesic treatment or animals not trained (e.g., DeVietti & Hopfer, 1974). However, controversy exists as to the meaning of this effect. Some regard the reminder literature as suggesting that amnesic treatments affect memory retrieval processes (e.g.,

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 58%