scholarly journals Is procedural memory enhanced in Tourette syndrome? Evidence from a sequence learning task

Cortex ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 100 ◽  
pp. 84-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ádám Takács ◽  
Andrea Kóbor ◽  
Júlia Chezan ◽  
Noémi Éltető ◽  
Zsanett Tárnok ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 117 ◽  
pp. 33-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ádám Takács ◽  
Yuval Shilon ◽  
Karolina Janacsek ◽  
Andrea Kóbor ◽  
Antoine Tremblay ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kata Horváth ◽  
Csenge Török ◽  
Orsolya Pesthy ◽  
Dezso Nemeth ◽  
Karolina Janacsek

AbstractProcedural memory facilitates the efficient processing of complex environmental stimuli and contributes to the acquisition of automatic behaviours and habits. Learning can occur intentionally or incidentally, yet, how the mode of learning affects procedural memory is still poorly understood. Importantly, procedural memory is a complex cognitive function composed of different subprocesses, including the acquisition and consolidation of statistical, frequency-based and sequential, order-based knowledge. Therefore, we tested how statistical and sequence knowledge develops during incidental versus intentional procedural memory formation and during consolidation. Seventy-four young adults performed either the uncued, incidental (N = 37) or the cued, intentional (N = 37) version of a probabilistic sequence learning task. Performance was retested after a 12-hour offline period, enabling us to test the effect of sleep on consolidation; therefore, half of the participants slept during the delay, while the other half had normal daily activity (PM-AM versus AM-PM design). The mode of learning (incidental versus intentional) had no effect on the acquisition of statistical knowledge, while intention to learn increased sequence learning performance. Consolidation was not affected by intention to learn: Both statistical and sequence knowledge was retained over the 12-hour delay, irrespective of the mode of learning and whether the delay included sleep or wake activity. These results suggest a time-dependent instead of sleep-dependent consolidation of both statistical and sequence knowledge. Our findings could contribute to a better understanding of how the mode of learning (intentional or incidental) affects procedural memory formation and consolidation.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Eszter Tóth-Fáber ◽  
Zsanett Tárnok ◽  
Karolina Janacsek ◽  
Andrea Kóbor ◽  
Péter Nagy ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 261
Author(s):  
Frank J. van Schalkwijk ◽  
Walter R. Gruber ◽  
Laurie A. Miller ◽  
Eugen Trinka ◽  
Yvonne Höller

Memory complaints are frequently reported by patients with epilepsy and are associated with seizure occurrence. Yet, the direct effects of seizures on memory retention are difficult to assess given their unpredictability. Furthermore, previous investigations have predominantly assessed declarative memory. This study evaluated within-subject effects of seizure occurrence on retention and consolidation of a procedural motor sequence learning task in patients with epilepsy undergoing continuous monitoring for five consecutive days. Of the total sample of patients considered for analyses (N = 53, Mage = 32.92 ± 13.80 y, range = 18–66 y; 43% male), 15 patients experienced seizures and were used for within-patient analyses. Within-patient contrasts showed general improvements over seizure-free (day + night) and seizure-affected retention periods. Yet, exploratory within-subject contrasts for patients diagnosed with temporal lobe epilepsy (n = 10) showed that only seizure-free retention periods resulted in significant improvements, as no performance changes were observed following seizure-affected retention. These results indicate general performance improvements and offline consolidation of procedural memory during the day and night. Furthermore, these results suggest the relevance of healthy temporal lobe functioning for successful consolidation of procedural information, as well as the importance of seizure control for effective retention and consolidation of procedural memory.


NeuroImage ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. S883
Author(s):  
P. Peigneux ◽  
P. Maquet ◽  
M. Van der Linden ◽  
T. Meulemans ◽  
C. Degueldre ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 628-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatemeh Noohi ◽  
Nate B. Boyden ◽  
Youngbin Kwak ◽  
Jennifer Humfleet ◽  
David T. Burke ◽  
...  

Individuals learn new skills at different rates. Given the involvement of corticostriatal pathways in some types of learning, variations in dopaminergic transmission may contribute to these individual differences. Genetic polymorphisms of the catechol- O-methyltransferase (COMT) enzyme and dopamine receptor D2 (DRD2) genes partially determine cortical and striatal dopamine availability, respectively. Individuals who are homozygous for the COMT methionine ( met) allele show reduced cortical COMT enzymatic activity, resulting in increased dopamine levels in the prefrontal cortex as opposed to individuals who are carriers of the valine ( val) allele. DRD2 G-allele homozygotes benefit from a higher striatal dopamine level compared with T-allele carriers. We hypothesized that individuals who are homozygous for COMT met and DRD2 G alleles would show higher rates of motor learning. Seventy-two young healthy females (20 ± 1.9 yr) performed a sensorimotor adaptation task and a motor sequence learning task. A nonparametric mixed model ANOVA revealed that the COMT val-val group demonstrated poorer performance in the sequence learning task compared with the met-met group and showed a learning deficit in the visuomotor adaptation task compared with both met-met and val-met groups. The DRD2 TT group showed poorer performance in the sequence learning task compared with the GT group, but there was no difference between DRD2 genotype groups in adaptation rate. Although these results did not entirely come out as one might predict based on the known contribution of corticostriatal pathways to motor sequence learning, they support the role of genetic polymorphisms of COMT val158met (rs4680) and DRD2 G>T (rs 1076560) in explaining individual differences in motor performance and motor learning, dependent on task type.


2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karolina Janacsek ◽  
Geza Gergely Ambrus ◽  
Walter Paulus ◽  
Andrea Antal ◽  
Dezso Nemeth

2019 ◽  
Vol 130 (7) ◽  
pp. e62
Author(s):  
Kardelen Eryürek ◽  
Zeliha Matur ◽  
Tamer Demiralp ◽  
Emre Öge

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document