Subjects: Psychology >> Developmental Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： A consolidated memory trace can go back to an unstable state after reactivation and become susceptible to modulation, as long as it conforms to specific conditions. Memory reactivation serves as opening a short time window for the labile trace of memory be modified before coming into a new round of consolidation which is called the reconsolidation. It provides a transient opportunity to strengthen memories or disrupt undesired and maladaptive memories, so as to open avenues for developing a revolutionary treatment for emotional memory disorders. Behavioral intervention, however, is of especial significance in human studies as well as the clinical translation practice; and has been demonstrated as an effective way to interfere with destabilized memories. However, even in simple laboratory models, the conditions for inducing memory reconsolidation are complex, which highlights difficulties and challenges for clinical translation. We reviewed the main evidence and advances in the behavioral interference of memory reconsolidation, both in the laboratory and clinical practice. Future research can find its way to set up a more ecological experimental model to simulate the actual trauma and to build an optimal procedure to trigger and intervene memory reconsolidation. Additionally, the cooperation of studies of the neurophysiological, cellular and molecular levels is needed to deepen our understanding of the internal mechanism underlying the paradigm.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： The error-driven learning theory believes that the reinforcement brought by the stimulus must be surprising or unpredictable for the individual to form learning. The mismatch between the expected consequence of behavior and the actual result, known as prediction error (PE), is the driving factor of learning, according to this theory. The Rescorla & Wagner model, the Pearce-Hall model, and the temporal difference (TD) model are the three most common models for calculating prediction error. The RW model and the TD model, in particular, have had a significant impact on the research of prediction error-driven learning and memory. Under different learning models, prediction error is classified as reward or punishment prediction error (RPE or PPE); positive or negative prediction error; and singed or unsigned prediction error (SPE or UPE). As a type of salience, PE is different from other types of saliences. Salience includes stimulus novelty, valence evaluation, stimulus rareness and other salience. Physical salience, surprise (unexpected novelty), and expected novelty are all types of novelty, but only unexpected novelty can promote dopamine release; physical salience with no direct rewards can only cause a short spike in dopamine. Prediction error, on the other hand, are mostly related to the recognition, result perception, and valence evaluation processes. A large body of work investigated the role of prediction error in the formation and updating of fear memory. Firstly, prediction error is considered to be a necessary factor in the process of fear acquisition. Negative PE is the source of successful fear extinction. Secondly, under the framework of Reconsolidation Interference of conditioned fear memory, prediction error is demonstrated as a necessary condition of memory destabilization. Prediction error plays a key role in fear memory reconsolidation: (1) PE during memory reactivation is an important boundary condition for memory destabilization; (2) PE is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the triggering of reconsolidation. The degree of prediction error determines whether or not the memory can become unstable. PE's role in memory updating has progressed from a qualitative to a quantitative examination, which has become an important measure of such research development; (3) The size of PE required for memory destabilization is proportional to the memory’s original strength. Thus, it is critical to take both sides into account when evaluating a retrieval manipulation. We propose an integrated model of retrieval boundary conditions and memory features for the reconsolidation of fear memories based on these studies and previous models. However, until recently, the neural mechanism underlying the involvement of prediction error in fear memory update has remained largely elusive. Recent work has revealed the brain areas involved mainly include the amygdala, ventrolateral peri-aqueduct gray matter (vlPAG), hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex (PFC). The PFC, in particular, is a distinct area that may distinguish the fear extinguish with or without reconsolidation. While a range of neurotransmitters are linked to the role of PE in memory destabilization in terms of neuromodulation in brain circuits, the most significant of which is dopaminergic. However, glutamate’s participation in the same process is also worth mentioning. We propose that in the future direction of the research on fear memory updating, further exploration should be made on quantitative research based on the PE calculation model, integrating the interaction between PE and other boundary conditions, and investigating the role of different types of saliences in memory reconsolidation. Importantly, multidisciplinary methods are urgently need to be used to investigate the neural and molecular mechanisms of PE's role in fear memory renewal. Individual differences in the effects of PE, on the other hand, must be investigated in order to facilitate the translation of studies from bench to bedside.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Under the framework of Reconsolidation Interference of conditioned fear memory, Prediction Error (PE) has been demonstrated as a necessary condition of memory destabilization. However, the role of PE in destabilizing fear memories of different strengths is unclear. The degree of PE that is needed to effectively reactivate fear memories may be dependent on the strength of memory. It is unknown whether the PE used to reactivate weak memories is also effective in destabilizing stronger memories. Memory strength was proved to be an important boundary condition of memory reconsolidation; however, explorations of solutions to overcome the boundary are rare. Among factors that are possible to help to overcome the boundary condition, the effects of stress hormones are worth exploring. However, the manipulation of memory strength in human laboratory studies has not been well developed. Thus, the present study has three main aims: (1) to test the effect of fear memory strength in a human laboratory setting based on previous results in animal studies; (2) to examine the effect of PE during reactivation on destabilizing different strength memories and (3) to test the possible influence of post-reactivation exogenous stress to the retrieval-extinction of fear memories. These results indicate that PE used to destabilize weak memories is insufficient to destabilize strong memories; and that post-reactivation acute stress cannot nullify this deficit which is due to boundary conditions (e.g., strength). We discuss possible interpretations of these results and the implications for the translation of retrieval-extinction to clinical practice. The three days retrieval-extinction paradigm was adopted in the present study. We manipulated memory strength through two kinds of acquisition procedures on the first day, which varied the predictability of the unconditioned stimulus (US) occurrence after the conditioned stimulus (CS). Twenty-four hours later, a reminder containing a single PE was used to reactivate memories, which was followed by a stress task (Social Evaluate Cold Pressor test, SECPT) or not before extinction. After 24 hours, a test of spontaneous recovery and reinstatement was utilized to measure the return of fear in each condition. All participants were divided into three conditions: CS-Predictable US_no Stress Group, CS-Unpredictable US_no Stress Group and the CS-Unpredictable US_Stress Group. Skin conductance response (SCR) and fear-potentiated startle response (FPS) were used as measurements of conditioned fear. The results showed that there was a relatively stronger increase in fear response (SCR) from Day 1 to Day 2 in the CS-Unpredictable US condition than the CS-Predictable US condition, which may suggest a difference in memory strength between conditions. And for the weak fear memory (CS-predictable US), the reactivation that involved a single PE and was followed by extinction training prevented the spontaneous recovery, especially on the SCR measurement. On the other hand, in the enhanced memory condition (CS-unpredictable US), the extinguished memory returned in the memory test on the third day, which suggests a failure of memory destabilization. Furthermore, when the post-reactivation acute stress task was adopted in the enhanced memory condition, the return of fear further increased, compared with the no stress manipulation conditions.
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment