Rodrigo S. Fernández

The fate of memory: Reconsolidation and the case of Prediction Error.

The ability to make predictions based on stored information is a general coding strategy. A Prediction-Error (PE) is a mismatch between expected and current events. It was proposed as the process by which memories are acquired. But, our memories like ourselves are subject to change. Thus, an acquired memory can become active and update its content or strength by a labilization-reconsolidation process. Within the reconsolidation framework, PE drives the updating of consolidated memories. Moreover, memory features, such as strength and age, are crucial boundary conditions that limit the initiation of the reconsolidation process. In order to disentangle these boundary conditions, we review the role of surprise, classical models of conditioning, and their neural correlates. Several forms of PE were found to be capable of inducing memory labilization-reconsolidation. Notably, many of the PE findings mirror those of memory-reconsolidation, suggesting a strong link between these signals and memory process. Altogether, the aim of the present work is to integrate a psychological and neuroscientific analysis of PE into a general framework for memory-reconsolidation.

Strengthening a consolidated memory: the key role of the reconsolidation process.

The reconsolidation hypothesis posits that the presentation of a specific cue, previously associated with a life event, makes the stored memory pass from a stable to a reactivated state. In this state, memory is again labile and susceptible to different agents, which may either damage or improve the original memory. Such susceptibility decreases over time and leads to a re-stabilization phase known as reconsolidation process. This process has been assigned two biological roles: memory updating, which suggests that destabilization of the original memory allows the integration of new information into the background of the original memory; and memory strengthening, which postulates that the labilization-reconsolidation process strengthens the original memory. The aim of this review is to analyze the strengthening as an improvement obtained only by triggering such process without any other treatment. In our lab, we have demonstrated that when triggering the labilization-reconsolidation process at least once the original memory becomes strengthened and increases its persistence. We have also shown that repeated labilization-reconsolidation processes strengthened the original memory by enlarging its precision, and said reinforced memories were more resistant to interference. Finally, we have shown that the strengthening function is not operative in older memories. We present and discuss both our findings and those of others, trying to reveal the central role of reconsolidation in the modification of stored information.

The Role and Dynamic of Strengthening in the Reconsolidation Process in a Human Declarative Memory: What Decides the Fate of Recent and Older Memories?

Several reports have shown that after specific reminders are presented, consolidated memories pass from a stable state to one in which the memory is reactivated. This reactivation implies that memories are labile and susceptible to amnesic agents. This susceptibility decreases over time and leads to a re-stabilization phase usually known as reconsolidation. With respect to the biological role of reconsolidation, two functions have been proposed. First, the reconsolidation process allows new information to be integrated into the background of the original memory; second, it strengthens the original memory. We have previously demonstrated that both of these functions occur in the reconsolidation of human declarative memories. Our paradigm consisted of learning verbal material (lists of five pairs of nonsense syllables) acquired by a training process (L1-training) on Day 1 of our experiment. After this declarative memory is consolidated, it can be made labile by presenting a specific reminder. After this, the memory passes through a subsequent stabilization process. Strengthening creates a new scenario for the reconsolidation process; this function represents a new factor that may transform the dynamic of memories. First, we analyzed whether the repeated labilization-reconsolidation processes maintained the memory for longer periods of time. We showed that at least one labilization-reconsolidation process strengthens a memory via evaluation 5 days after its re-stabilization. We also demonstrated that this effect is not triggered by retrieval only. We then analyzed the way strengthening modified the effect of an amnesic agent that was presented immediately after repeated labilizations. The repeated labilization-reconsolidation processes made the memory more resistant to interference during re-stabilization. Finally, we evaluated whether the effect of strengthening may depend on the age of the memory. We found that the effect of strengthening did depend on the age of the memory. Forgetting may represent a process that weakens the effect of strengthening.

The dynamic nature of the reconsolidation process and its boundary conditions: Evidence based on human tests.

The reconsolidation process is the mechanism by which the strength and/or content of consolidated memories are updated. This process is triggered by the presentation of a reminder (training cues). It is not always possible to trigger the reconsolidation process. For example, memory age and strength are boundary conditions for the reconsolidation process. Here, we investigated the dynamic changes in these conditions. We propose that the boundary conditions of the reconsolidation process are not fixed and vary as a consequence of the interaction between memory features and reminder characteristics. To modify memory properties, participants received a threatening social protocol that improves memory acquisition or a control condition (fake, without social interaction) prior to learning pairs of meaningless syllables. To determine whether a strong young or old declarative memory undergoes the reconsolidation process, we used an interference task (a second list of pairs of meaningless syllables) to disrupt memory re-stabilization. To assess whether the older memory could be strengthened, we repeated the triggering of reconsolidation. Strong young or old memories modulated by a threatening experience could be interfered during reconsolidation and updated (strengthened) by reconsolidation. Rather than being fixed, boundary conditions vary according to the memory features (strong memory), which indicates the dynamic nature of the reconsolidation process. Our findings demonstrate that it is possible to modify these limits by recruiting the reconsolidation process and making it functionally operative again. This novel scenario opens the possibility to new therapeutically approaches that take into account the reconsolidation process.

Differential Left Hippocampal Activation during Retrieval with Different Types of Reminders: An fMRI Study of the Reconsolidation Process.

Consolidated memories return to a labile state after the presentation of cues (reminders) associated with acquisition, followed by a period of stabilization (reconsolidation). However not all cues are equally effective in initiating the process, unpredictable cues triggered it, predictable cues do not. We hypothesize that the different effects observed by the different reminder types on memory labilization-reconsolidation depend on a differential neural involvement during reminder presentation. To test it, we developed a declarative task and compared the efficacy of three reminder types in triggering the process in humans (Experiment 1). Finally, we compared the brain activation patterns between the different conditions using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) (Experiment 2). We confirmed that the unpredictable reminder is the most effective in initiating the labilization-reconsolidation process. Furthermore, only under this condition there was differential left hippocampal activation during its presentation. We suggest that the left hippocampus is detecting the incongruence between actual and past events and allows the memory to be updated.

Toward a better understanding on the role of prediction error on memory processes: From bench to clinic

HighlightsPrediction error is the driven‐force for memory acquisition and reconsolidation.Proteasome, CAMKII, NR2B NMDA receptor are involved in memory destabilization.Dopamine, Noradrenaline and Acetylcholine are involved in labilization.Prediction error minimization strategies are crucial in psychiatry disorders. Abstract Experimental psychology defines Prediction Error (PE) as a mismatch between expected and current events. It represents a unifier concept within the memory field, as it is the driving force of memory acquisition and updating. Prediction error induces updating of consolidated memories in strength or content by memory reconsolidation. This process has two different neurobiological phases, which involves the destabilization (labilization) of a consolidated memory followed by its restabilization. The aim of this work is to emphasize the functional role of PE on the neurobiology of learning and memory, integrating and discussing different research areas: behavioral, neurobiological, computational and clinical psychiatry.

Different dimensions of the prediction error as a decisive factor for the triggering of the reconsolidation process

The reconsolidation process is the mechanism by which strength and/or content of consolidated memories are updated. Prediction error (PE) is the difference between the prediction made and current events. It is proposed as a necessary condition to trigger the reconsolidation process. Here we analyzed deeply the role of the PE in the associative memory reconsolidation in the crab Neohelice granulata. An incongruence between the learned temporal relationship between conditioned and unconditioned stimuli (CS-US) was enough to trigger the reconsolidation process. Moreover, after a partial reinforced training, a PE of 50% opened the possibility to labilize the consolidated memory with a reminder which included or not the US. Further, during an extinction training a small PE in the first interval between CSs was enough to trigger reconsolidation. Overall, we highlighted the relation between training history and different reactivation possibilities to recruit the process responsible of memory updating.

Does reconsolidation occur in natural settings? Memory reconsolidation and anxiety disorders

In normal settings, our brain is able to update its stored representations in content, strength, and/or expectations by the memory reconsolidation process. Thus, a reactivated memory enters in a transient labile state (destabilization) followed by a re-stabilization phase in order to persist (memory reconsolidation). Cognitive neuroscience and its insight into psychiatric problems attributed a close relationship between memory (formation, maintenance, and utilization) and several mental disorders. In this framework, the reconsolidation process could be not only the mechanism for maintenance of some psychopathologies, but also open a novel therapeutic window. Here we aim to integrate recent experimental and theoretical research on memory reconsolidation and anxiety disorders maintenance. We propose a bayesian-like model about anxiety disorders persistence and postulate a new theoretical framework for how anxiety disorders are maintained through impaired memory updating due to a dysfunctional prediction error minimization strategy and anticipatory responses to threat.

Interference Conditions of the Reconsolidation Process in Humans: The Role of Valence and Different Memory Systems

Following the presentation of a reminder, consolidated memories become reactivated followed by a process of re-stabilization, which is referred to as reconsolidation. The most common behavioral tool used to reveal this process is interference produced by new learning shortly after memory reactivation. Memory interference is defined as a decrease in memory retrieval, the effect is generated when new information impairs an acquired memory. In general, the target memory and the interference task used are the same. Here we investigated how different memory systems and/or their valence could produce memory reconsolidation interference. We showed that a reactivated neutral declarative memory could be interfered by new learning of a different neutral declarative memory. Then, we revealed that an aversive implicit memory could be interfered by the presentation of a reminder followed by a threatening social event. Finally, we showed that the reconsolidation of a neutral declarative memory is unaffected by the acquisition of an aversive implicit memory and conversely, this memory remains intact when the neutral declarative memory is used as interference. These results suggest that the interference of memory reconsolidation is effective when two task rely on the same memory system or both evoke negative valence.

Positive modulation of a neutral declarative memory by a threatening social event.

Memories can be altered by negative or arousing experiences due to the activation of the stress-responsive sympatho-adrenal-medullary axis (SYM). Here, we used a neutral declarative memory that was acquired during multi-trial training to determine the effect of a threatening event on memory without emotional valence. To this end, participants received a new threatening social protocol before learning pairs of meaningless syllables and were tested either 15 min, 2 days or 8 days after acquisition. We first demonstrated that this threatening social situation activates not only the SYM axis (Experiment 1) and the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA; Experiment 2), but also, it improves the acquisition or early consolidation of the syllable pairs (Experiment 3). This improvement is not a transient effect; it can be observed after the memory is consolidated. Furthermore, this modulation increases the persistence of memory (Experiment 4). Thus, it is possible to affect memories with specific events that contain unrelated content and a different valence.