Retrieval of memory in animals.

Spear, Norman E.

doi:10.1037/h0034326

Cited by 498 publications

(348 citation statements)

References 147 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

315

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mere exposure to the hole-board without a memory reactivation session did not affect performance, suggesting a lack of non-specific effect of the hole-board task. At first glance, the results are consistent with an interference of the new learning with memory reconsolidation of the original learning (42,43).…”

Section: Non-pharmacological Manipulations: a New Learning Tasksupporting

confidence: 74%

Pharmacological effects and behavioral interventions on memory consolidation and reconsolidation

Baratti

Boccia

Blake

2009

Braz J Med Biol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we will review some behavioral, pharmacological and neurochemical studies from our laboratory on mice, which might contribute to our understanding of the complex processes of memory consolidation and reconsolidation. We discuss the post-training (memory consolidation) and post-reactivation (memory reconsolidation) effects of icv infusions of hemicholinium, a central inhibitor of acetylcholine synthesis, of intraperitoneal administration of L-NAME, a non-specific inhibitor of nitric oxide synthase, of intrahippocampal injections of an inhibitor of the transcription factor NF-κB, and the exposure of mice to a new learning situation on retention performance of an inhibitory avoidance response. All treatments impair long-term memory consolidation and retrieval-induced memory processes different from extinction, probably in accordance with the "reconsolidation hypothesis".

show abstract

Section: Non-pharmacological Manipulations: a New Learning Tasksupporting

confidence: 74%

Pharmacological effects and behavioral interventions on memory consolidation and reconsolidation

Baratti

Boccia

Blake

2009

Braz J Med Biol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Test performance would be assumed to be based either on the more stable long-term information, if it can be accessed, or on short-term memory, if the appropriate information still resides there. The Wagner, Rudy, and Whitlow (1973) theory of rehearsal in animal conditioning, as well as Spear's (1973Spear's ( , 1976 analysis of stimulus processing in relation to reinstatement or retrieval cues, is consistent with this general framework. Suppose that poststimulus processing (rehearsal) tends to occur following sample presentations and that, on interference trials, the presentation of the B stimulus disrupts rehearsal of the A stimulus in favor of rehearsal of the B stimulus.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 53%

Proactive interference in monkeys: Delay and intersample interval effects are noncomparable

Medin

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two prominent theories of proactive interference in animal memory predict that the effects of varying the interval between the interfering and to-be-remembered stimulus in a delayedmatching-to-sample paradigm ought to be comparable to the effects of manipulating the retention interval. To assess this prediction, monkeys were tested in a situation in which a sample was presented, followed by a variable intersample interval, whereupon a second sample was presented. After a delay interval, a choice test was given between the two stimuli that had served as samples. The correct choice was always the most recently presented sample stimulus, and the initial sample of a sequence provided a potential source of proactive interference. In two experiments, delay interval altered performance, whereas interstimulus interval had little or no effect. In a third experiment, using a small set of sample stimuli, intertrial interval altered proactive interference, but again interstimulus interval had no effect. One way of accounting for these data is in terms of distinct short-and long-term memory processes. 553As interest in short-term memory in animals continues, the number of stable empirical relationships uncovered steadily mounts. There is evidence, for example, that interference treatments alter memory for stimuli, responses, and reinforcers in a similar way (Maki, Moe, & Bierley, 1977) and produce the same pattern of results regardless of whether the subject population consists of pigeons, monkeys, or dolphins (D'Amato,1973;Herman, 1975;Roberts & Grant, 1976;Wilson, 1974;Worsham, 1975;Zentall & Hogan, 1974). Not surprisingly, there has been a concomitant interest in theories of animal memory, especially as they apply to interference phenomena.In discussing contrasting theories it will be useful to focus on a concrete experimental situation. Consider a delayed-matching-to-sample (DMTS) paradigm with two kinds of trials: (1) control trials, in which sample stimulus B is presented and, after a delay (retention) interval, a choice between stimulus A and stimulus B is given, with stimulus B rewarded; or (2) proactive interference trials, in which stimulus A is presented, then stimulus B is presented, and, after a delay interval, A and B are given on the choice test with stimulus B rewarded. Over an experimental session, A and B are rewarded equally often so that the correct solution is to choose the stimulus that has most recently served as a sample. Typically, performance on control trials surpasses that on inter- ference trials. Any memory theory must be able to address this basic finding.Although this paradigm seems to provide a natural tool for examining relationships between short-and long-term memory, the two most prominent theories of DMTS (D'Amato, 1973;Roberts & Grant, 1976) do not assume that performance reflects separate contributions from short-and long-term memory. Roberts and Grant, for example, proposed that longterm memory does not enter into pigeon DMTS performance. Instead, they assume that performance is contro...

show abstract

“…The conditional-cue account of context effects has been expressed in many different ways (see, e.g., Bouton & Bolles, 1985;Medin, 1976;Miller & Schachtman, 1985;Spear, 1973), but all of them incorporate some version of the notion that information about a CS-US relationship can be used or retrieved only in the presence of appropriate contextual cues. In the absence of contextual cues, the degree to which the CS predicts the US will be reduced.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Context specificity of conditioning in flavor-aversion learning: Extinction and blocking tests

Bonardi

Honey

Hall

1990

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments using rats as subjects, we investigated the degree to which a conditioned flavor aversion transfers from one context to another. Experiment 1, using a one-trial conditioning procedure, found no effect of a change of context on a conditioned aversion. Experiment 2 employed a multitrial procedure and demonstrated that a conditioned aversion was extinguished more rapidly after a change of context. Experiment 3 showed that context change decreased the effectiveness with which a conditioned flavor could block acquisition of an aversion by a second flavor. It is argued that these data cannot be explained in associative terms, and that they constitute evidence of conditionality in a simple aversive conditioning procedure.

show abstract

Retrieval of memory in animals.

Cited by 498 publications

References 147 publications

Pharmacological effects and behavioral interventions on memory consolidation and reconsolidation

Pharmacological effects and behavioral interventions on memory consolidation and reconsolidation

Proactive interference in monkeys: Delay and intersample interval effects are noncomparable

Context specificity of conditioning in flavor-aversion learning: Extinction and blocking tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About