Figure 1 - uploaded by Natalie Schroyens
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Re-exposure to elements of prior experiences can create opportunities for inducing amnesia for those events. The dominant theoretical framework posits that such re-exposure can result in memory destabilization, making the memory representation temporarily sensitive to disruption while it awaits reconsolidation. If veritable, a mechanism that allows...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... currently dominant theoretical framework posits that reminder-dependent amnestic effects rely on the occurrence of memory destabilization and reconsolidation. More specifically, reconsolidation theory assumes that a destabilized or active memory trace is temporarily sensitive to modification until the memory is presumably reconsolidated (3, 4) ( Fig. 1). Several manipulations are thought to interfere with memory reconsolidation if administered while the memory is in an active state, resulting in a disrupted (or enhanced) memory. Functionally, it is assumed that reconsolidation serves to allow for the updating of memories by providing the opportunity for incorporating novel information ...
Context 2
... memories and interventions (Table 1). To our knowledge, such an investigation has not yet been performed systematically for studies with non-human animals. Both reviews revealed that only a minority of reconsolidation studies had fully assessed the proposed criteria to infer reconsolidation interference from behavioral findings (see Elsey et al., Fig. 1 (29); and Hardwicke, Fig. 2.2 (30)). In addition, they identified several cases where some of the relevant criteria were explored, but not fulfilled (i.e., the observed results were not in line with what would be assumed on the basis of reconsolidation theory). Thus, many of the published human studies' positioning within a reconsolidation ...
Citations
... During reconsolidation, stable memory traces are retrieved and thereby destabilized, which allows them to be modified or deleted. It should be noted, however, that recent debates highlight that the boundary conditions of effective reconsolidation interference are not well known yet and that a number of studies failed to find effective reconsolidation effects (Schroyens et al., 2021). ...
People often keep engaging in behaviors that used to be successful in the past but which are knowingly no longer effective in the current situation, so called action slips. Such action slips are often explained with stimulus-driven processes in which behavior is caused by a stimulus- response association and without information about the outcome of the behavior. This process is contrasted with a goal-directed process in which behavior is selected because it is expected to lead to a desired outcome. Failing to act in line with changes in the outcome, is taken as evidence for stimulus-driven processes. Stimulus-driven processes are assumed to get installed after overtraining and to be deployed under poor operating conditions. In line with this, previous research has found that action slips are more likely to occur after extensive training and when under time pressure. We propose an alternative goal-directed explanation according to which action slips are caused by a goal-directed process that relies on old, no longer accurate, outcome information. In the current study, participants learned four stimulus- response-outcome contingencies during a single (i.e., moderate training) or a four-day training schedule (i.e., extensive training). Afterwards two contingencies were reversed and performance was assessed under time pressure. Results show that after extensive training, participants not only committed more action slips but also reported more old response- outcome contingencies in line with these action slips. This is consistent with the goal-directed explanation that action slips result from a reliance on old, no longer accurate outcome information.
... A growing body of literature shows that the reconsolidation process of aversive memories is an intricate and delicate process that cannot be easily manipulated with behavioural interventions in humans 35,51,[64][65][66][67][68] . While it is possible that cognitively demanding interventions may disrupt the reconsolidation process of aversive memories with respect to intrusive memories 32,33 , the failure of targeting the reconsolidation of threat memories ( 35 and the present study) puts to question the mechanism and its clinical applicability 69 . It is imperative that the working mechanism of therapeutic interventions should be understood, in order to optimise these interventions in the future. ...
Simultaneous execution of memory retrieval and cognitively demanding interventions alter the subjective experience of aversive memories. This principle can be used in treatment to target traumatic memories. An often-used interpretation is that cognitive demand interferes with memory reconsolidation. Laboratory models applying this technique often do not meet some important procedural steps thought necessary to trigger reconsolidation. It remains therefore unclear whether cognitively demanding interventions can alter the reconsolidation process of aversive memories. Here, 78 (41 included) healthy participants completed an established 3-day threat conditioning paradigm. Two conditioned stimuli were paired with a shock (CS+ s) and one was not (CS-). The next day, one CS+ (CS+ R), but not the other (CS+), was presented as a reminder. After 10 min, participants performed a 2-back working memory task. On day three, we assessed retention. We found successful acquisition of conditioned threat and retention (CS+ s > CS-). However, SCRs to the CS+ R and the CS+ during retention did not significantly differ. Although threat conditioning was successful, the well-established cognitively demanding intervention did not alter the reconsolidation process of conditioned threat memories. These findings challenge current views on how cognitively demand may enhance psychotherapy-outcome.
... During reconsolidation, stable memory traces are retrieved and thereby destabilized, which allows them to be modified or deleted. It should be noted, however, that recent debates highlight that the boundary conditions of effective reconsolidation interference are not well known yet and that a number of studies failed to find effective reconsolidation effects (Schroyens et al., 2021). ...
People often keep engaging in behaviors that used to be successful in the past but which are knowingly no longer effective in the current situation, so called action slips. Such action slips are often explained with stimulus-driven processes in which behavior is caused by a stimulus-response association and without information about the outcome of the behavior. This process is contrasted with a goal-directed process in which behavior is selected because it is expected to lead to a desired outcome. Failing to act in line with changes in the outcome, is taken as evidence for stimulus-driven processes. Stimulus-driven processes are assumed to get installed after overtraining and to be deployed under poor operating conditions. In line with this, previous research has found that action slips are more likely to occur after extensive training and when under time pressure. We propose an alternative goal-directed explanation according to which action slips are not caused by a stimulus-driven process, but rather by a goal-directed process that relies on old, no longer accurate, outcome information. In the current study, participants learned four stimulus-response-outcome contingencies during a single (i.e., moderate training) or a four-day training schedule (i.e., extensive training). Afterwards two contingencies were reversed. Results show that after extensive training and when under time pressure, participants not only committed more action slips but also reported more old response-outcome contingencies in line with these action slips. This is consistent with the goal-directed explanation that action slips result from a reliance on old, no longer accurate outcome information.
