Literature DB >> 23499722

Moderate levels of activation lead to forgetting in the think/no-think paradigm.

Greg J Detre1, Annamalai Natarajan, Samuel J Gershman, Kenneth A Norman.   

Abstract

Using the think/no-think paradigm (Anderson & Green, 2001), researchers have found that suppressing retrieval of a memory (in the presence of a strong retrieval cue) can make it harder to retrieve that memory on a subsequent test. This effect has been replicated numerous times, but the size of the effect is highly variable. Also, it is unclear from a neural mechanistic standpoint why preventing recall of a memory now should impair your ability to recall that memory later. Here, we address both of these puzzles using the idea, derived from computational modeling and studies of synaptic plasticity, that the function relating memory activation to learning is U-shaped, such that moderate levels of memory activation lead to weakening of the memory and higher levels of activation lead to strengthening. According to this view, forgetting effects in the think/no-think paradigm occur when the suppressed item activates moderately during the suppression attempt, leading to weakening; the effect is variable because sometimes the suppressed item activates strongly (leading to strengthening) and sometimes it does not activate at all (in which case no learning takes place). To test this hypothesis, we ran a think/no-think experiment where participants learned word-picture pairs; we used pattern classifiers, applied to fMRI data, to measure how strongly the picture associates were activating when participants were trying not to retrieve these associates, and we used a novel Bayesian curve-fitting procedure to relate this covert neural measure of retrieval to performance on a later memory test. In keeping with our hypothesis, the curve-fitting procedure revealed a nonmonotonic relationship between memory activation (as measured by the classifier) and subsequent memory, whereby moderate levels of activation of the to-be-suppressed item led to diminished performance on the final memory test, and higher levels of activation led to enhanced performance on the final test.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Inhibition; Memory; Plasticity; fMRI

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23499722      PMCID: PMC3702674          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.02.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  60 in total

1.  Implicit perceptual anticipation triggered by statistical learning.

Authors:  Nicholas B Turk-Browne; Brian J Scholl; Marcia K Johnson; Marvin M Chun
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 2.  Decoding mental states from brain activity in humans.

Authors:  John-Dylan Haynes; Geraint Rees
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 34.870

3.  Prefrontal regions orchestrate suppression of emotional memories via a two-phase process.

Authors:  Brendan E Depue; Tim Curran; Marie T Banich
Journal:  Science       Date:  2007-07-13       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  ERP evidence for successful voluntary avoidance of conscious recollection.

Authors:  Zara M Bergström; Max Velmans; Jan de Fockert; Alan Richardson-Klavehn
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2007-03-12       Impact factor: 3.252

5.  An interference account of cue-independent forgetting in the no-think paradigm.

Authors:  Tracy D Tomlinson; David E Huber; Cory A Rieth; Eddy J Davelaar
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-08-26       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance.

Authors:  Sander Nieuwenhuis; Birte U Forstmann; Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2011-08-26       Impact factor: 24.884

7.  Different threshold levels of postsynaptic [Ca2+]i have to be reached to induce LTP and LTD in neocortical pyramidal cells.

Authors:  C Hansel; A Artola; W Singer
Journal:  J Physiol Paris       Date:  1996

8.  Inhibitory control of memory retrieval and motor processing associated with the right lateral prefrontal cortex: evidence from deficits in individuals with ADHD.

Authors:  B E Depue; G C Burgess; E G Willcutt; L Ruzic; M T Banich
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2010-09-21       Impact factor: 3.139

9.  Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex.

Authors:  J V Haxby; M I Gobbini; M L Furey; A Ishai; J L Schouten; P Pietrini
Journal:  Science       Date:  2001-09-28       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Temporary activation of long-term memory supports working memory.

Authors:  Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock; Bradley R Postle
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-08-27       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  37 in total

1.  Post-learning Hippocampal Dynamics Promote Preferential Retention of Rewarding Events.

Authors:  Matthias J Gruber; Maureen Ritchey; Shao-Fang Wang; Manoj K Doss; Charan Ranganath
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 17.173

2.  Classification aided analysis of oscillatory signatures in controlled retrieval.

Authors:  Nicholas Ketz; Randal C O'Reilly; Tim Curran
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 3.  Using computational theory to constrain statistical models of neural data.

Authors:  Scott W Linderman; Samuel J Gershman
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 6.627

4.  Overlap among Spatial Memories Triggers Repulsion of Hippocampal Representations.

Authors:  Avi J H Chanales; Ashima Oza; Serra E Favila; Brice A Kuhl
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 10.834

5.  Memory reactivation during rest supports upcoming learning of related content.

Authors:  Margaret L Schlichting; Alison R Preston
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-10-20       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Neural Differentiation of Incorrectly Predicted Memories.

Authors:  Ghootae Kim; Kenneth A Norman; Nicholas B Turk-Browne
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-01-23       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Neural Overlap in Item Representations Across Episodes Impairs Context Memory.

Authors:  Ghootae Kim; Kenneth A Norman; Nicholas B Turk-Browne
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 5.357

8.  Pruning of memories by context-based prediction error.

Authors:  Ghootae Kim; Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock; Kenneth A Norman; Nicholas B Turk-Browne
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Briefly cuing memories leads to suppression of their neural representations.

Authors:  Jordan Poppenk; Kenneth A Norman
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-06-04       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Predictability Changes What We Remember in Familiar Temporal Contexts.

Authors:  Hyojeong Kim; Margaret L Schlichting; Alison R Preston; Jarrod A Lewis-Peacock
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2019-09-27       Impact factor: 3.225

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.