对巩固、再巩固和长期记忆维护的损害导致记忆消除。

IF 12.1 1区 医学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES Annual review of neuroscience Pub Date : 2020-07-08 Epub Date: 2020-02-25 DOI:10.1146/annurev-neuro-091319-024636
Josué Haubrich, Matteo Bernabo, Andrew G Baker, Karim Nader
{"title":"对巩固、再巩固和长期记忆维护的损害导致记忆消除。","authors":"Josué Haubrich,&nbsp;Matteo Bernabo,&nbsp;Andrew G Baker,&nbsp;Karim Nader","doi":"10.1146/annurev-neuro-091319-024636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An enduring problem in neuroscience is determining whether cases of amnesia result from eradication of the memory trace (storage impairment) or if the trace is present but inaccessible (retrieval impairment). The most direct approach to resolving this question is to quantify changes in the brain mechanisms of long-term memory (BM-LTM). This approach argues that if the amnesia is due to a retrieval failure, BM-LTM should remain at levels comparable to trained, unimpaired animals. Conversely, if memories are erased, BM-LTM should be reduced to resemble untrained levels. Here we review the use of BM-LTM in a number of studies that induced amnesia by targeting memory maintenance or reconsolidation. The literature strongly suggests that such amnesia is due to storage rather than retrieval impairments. We also describe the shortcomings of the purely behavioral protocol that purports to show recovery from amnesia as a method of understanding the nature of amnesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":8008,"journal":{"name":"Annual review of neuroscience","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":12.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/annurev-neuro-091319-024636","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impairments to Consolidation, Reconsolidation, and Long-Term Memory Maintenance Lead to Memory Erasure.\",\"authors\":\"Josué Haubrich,&nbsp;Matteo Bernabo,&nbsp;Andrew G Baker,&nbsp;Karim Nader\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-neuro-091319-024636\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>An enduring problem in neuroscience is determining whether cases of amnesia result from eradication of the memory trace (storage impairment) or if the trace is present but inaccessible (retrieval impairment). The most direct approach to resolving this question is to quantify changes in the brain mechanisms of long-term memory (BM-LTM). This approach argues that if the amnesia is due to a retrieval failure, BM-LTM should remain at levels comparable to trained, unimpaired animals. Conversely, if memories are erased, BM-LTM should be reduced to resemble untrained levels. Here we review the use of BM-LTM in a number of studies that induced amnesia by targeting memory maintenance or reconsolidation. The literature strongly suggests that such amnesia is due to storage rather than retrieval impairments. We also describe the shortcomings of the purely behavioral protocol that purports to show recovery from amnesia as a method of understanding the nature of amnesia.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8008,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual review of neuroscience\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/annurev-neuro-091319-024636\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual review of neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-091319-024636\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/2/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual review of neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-091319-024636","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/2/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

摘要

神经科学中一个经久不衰的问题是确定失忆症病例是由于记忆痕迹的消失(存储障碍)还是由于记忆痕迹存在但无法获取(检索障碍)。解决这个问题最直接的方法是量化长期记忆(BM-LTM)大脑机制的变化。这种方法认为,如果健忘症是由于检索失败,BM-LTM应该保持在与受过训练的未受损动物相当的水平。相反,如果记忆被删除,BM-LTM应该降低到类似于未经训练的水平。在这里,我们回顾了BM-LTM在一些以记忆维持或再巩固为目标诱导健忘症的研究中的应用。文献有力地表明,这种健忘症是由于存储而不是检索障碍。我们还描述了纯行为协议的缺点,该协议旨在显示从健忘症中恢复作为理解健忘症本质的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Impairments to Consolidation, Reconsolidation, and Long-Term Memory Maintenance Lead to Memory Erasure.

An enduring problem in neuroscience is determining whether cases of amnesia result from eradication of the memory trace (storage impairment) or if the trace is present but inaccessible (retrieval impairment). The most direct approach to resolving this question is to quantify changes in the brain mechanisms of long-term memory (BM-LTM). This approach argues that if the amnesia is due to a retrieval failure, BM-LTM should remain at levels comparable to trained, unimpaired animals. Conversely, if memories are erased, BM-LTM should be reduced to resemble untrained levels. Here we review the use of BM-LTM in a number of studies that induced amnesia by targeting memory maintenance or reconsolidation. The literature strongly suggests that such amnesia is due to storage rather than retrieval impairments. We also describe the shortcomings of the purely behavioral protocol that purports to show recovery from amnesia as a method of understanding the nature of amnesia.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annual review of neuroscience
Annual review of neuroscience 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
25.30
自引率
0.70%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: The Annual Review of Neuroscience is a well-established and comprehensive journal in the field of neuroscience, with a rich history and a commitment to open access and scholarly communication. The journal has been in publication since 1978, providing a long-standing source of authoritative reviews in neuroscience. The Annual Review of Neuroscience encompasses a wide range of topics within neuroscience, including but not limited to: Molecular and cellular neuroscience, Neurogenetics, Developmental neuroscience, Neural plasticity and repair, Systems neuroscience, Cognitive neuroscience, Behavioral neuroscience, Neurobiology of disease. Occasionally, the journal also features reviews on the history of neuroscience and ethical considerations within the field.
期刊最新文献
A Whole-Brain Topographic Ontology. Harmony in the Molecular Orchestra of Hearing: Developmental Mechanisms from the Ear to the Brain. Circuit-Specific Deep Brain Stimulation Provides Insights into Movement Control. Predictive Processing: A Circuit Approach to Psychosis. Neural Control of Naturalistic Behavior Choices.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1