scholarly journals Facilitative effect of a pretest exposure to the CS: Analysis and implications for the memory trace

1990 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascale Gisquet-Verrier ◽  
Tatiana Alexinsky
Keyword(s):  
Memory Trace ◽  
Facilitative Effect ◽  
Pretest Exposure

Suppressed, but Not Forgotten

2011 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beat Meier ◽  
Anja König ◽  
Samuel Parak ◽  
Katharina Henke
Keyword(s):  
Memory Trace ◽  
Thought Suppression ◽  
Test Phase ◽  
Indirect Test ◽  
Final Test ◽  
Test Experiment ◽  
And Control ◽  
Cue Words ◽  
The Impact

This study investigates the impact of thought suppression over a 1-week interval. In two experiments with 80 university students each, we used the think/no-think paradigm in which participants initially learn a list of word pairs (cue-target associations). Then they were presented with some of the cue words again and should either respond with the target word or avoid thinking about it. In the final test phase, their memory for the initially learned cue-target pairs was tested. In Experiment 1, type of memory test was manipulated (i.e., direct vs. indirect). In Experiment 2, type of no-think instructions was manipulated (i.e., suppress vs. substitute). Overall, our results showed poorer memory for no-think and control items compared to think items across all experiments and conditions. Critically, however, more no-think than control items were remembered after the 1-week interval in the direct, but not in the indirect test (Experiment 1) and with thought suppression, but not thought substitution instructions (Experiment 2). We suggest that during thought suppression a brief reactivation of the learned association may lead to reconsolidation of the memory trace and hence to better retrieval of suppressed than control items in the long term.

Registered Report: Transcriptional Analysis of Savings Memory Suggests Forgetting Is Due to Retrieval Failure

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Calin-Jageman ◽  
Irina Calin-Jageman ◽  
Tania Rosiles ◽  
Melissa Nguyen ◽  
Annette Garcia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Memory Trace ◽  
Aplysia Californica ◽  
Transcriptional Response ◽  
Transcriptional Analysis ◽  
Retrieval Failure ◽  
Initial Learning ◽  
Rigorous Test ◽  
Stage 1 ◽  
Induced Changes

[[This is a Stage 2 Registered Report manuscript now accepted for publication at eNeuro. The accepted Stage 1 manuscript is posted here: https://psyarxiv.com/s7dft, and the pre-registration for the project is available here (https://osf.io/fqh8j, 9/11/2019). A link to the final Stage 2 manuscript will be posted after peer review and publication.]] There is fundamental debate about the nature of forgetting: some have argued that it represents the decay of the memory trace, others that the memory trace persists but becomes inaccessible due to retrieval failure. These different accounts of forgetting lead to different predictions about savings memory, the rapid re-learning of seemingly forgotten information. If forgetting is due to decay, then savings requires re-encoding and should thus involve the same mechanisms as initial learning. If forgetting is due to retrieval failure, then savings should be mechanistically distinct from encoding. In this registered report we conducted a pre-registered and rigorous test between these accounts of forgetting. Specifically, we used microarray to characterize the transcriptional correlates of a new memory (1 day after training), a forgotten memory (8 days after training), and a savings memory (8 days after training but with a reminder on day 7 to evoke a long-term savings memory) for sensitization in Aplysia californica (n = 8 samples/group). We found that the re-activation of sensitization during savings does not involve a substantial transcriptional response. Thus, savings is transcriptionally distinct relative to a newer (1-day old) memory, with no co-regulated transcripts, negligible similarity in regulation-ranked ordering of transcripts, and a negligible correlation in training-induced changes in gene expression (r = .04 95% CI [-.12, .20]). Overall, our results suggest that forgetting of sensitization memory represents retrieval failure.

Stage 1 Registered Report Manuscript - Transcriptional Correlates of Savings Memory: Is Forgetting Due to Decay or Retrieval Failure?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Calin-Jageman ◽  
Irina Calin-Jageman ◽  
Tania Rosiles ◽  
Melissa Nguyen ◽  
Annette Garcia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Memory Trace ◽  
Aplysia Californica ◽  
Retrieval Failure ◽  
Initial Learning ◽  
Rigorous Test ◽  
Regulated Gene Expression ◽  
Stage 1 ◽  
Weak Similarity

[[This is a Stage 1 Registered Report manuscript. The project was submitted for review to eNeuro. Upon revision and acceptance, this version of the manuscript was pre-registered on the OSF (9/11/2019, https://osf.io/fqh8j) (but due to an oversight not posted as a preprint until July 2020). A Stage 2 manuscript is now posted as a pre-print (https://psyarxiv.com/h59jv) and is under review at eNeuro. A link to the final Stage 2 manuscript will be added when available.]]There is fundamental debate about the nature of forgetting: some have argued that it represents the decay of the memory trace, others that the memory trace persists but becomes inaccessible due to retrieval failure. These different accounts of forgetting make different predictions about savings memory, the rapid re-learning of seemingly forgotten information. If forgetting is due to decay then savings requires re-encoding and should thus involve the same mechanisms as initial learning. If forgetting is due to retrieval-failure then savings should be mechanistically distinct from encoding. In this registered report we conducted a pre-registered and rigorous test between these accounts of forgetting. Specifically, we used microarray to characterize the transcriptional correlates of a new memory (1 day from training), a forgotten memory (8 days from training), and a savings memory (8 days from training but with a reminder on day 7 to evoke a long-term savings memory) for sensitization in Aplysia californica (n = 8 samples/group). We find that the transcriptional correlates of savings are [highly similar / somewhat similar / unique] relative to new (1-day-old) memories. Specifically, savings memory and a new memory share [X] of [Y] regulated transcripts, show [strong / moderate / weak] similarity in sets of regulated transcripts, and show [r] correlation in regulated gene expression, which is [substantially / somewhat / not at all] stronger than at forgetting. Overall, our results suggest that forgetting represents [decay / retrieval-failure / mixed mechanisms].

An Argument for the Logical Notion of a Memory Trace

1975 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah A. Rosen
Keyword(s):  
Memory Trace ◽  
Logical Notion
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document