Faculty Opinions recommendation of Drosophila alpha/beta mushroom body neurons form a branch-specific, long-term cellular memory trace after spaced olfactory conditioning.

Author(s):  
Martin Giurfa
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bohan Zhao ◽  
Jiameng Sun ◽  
Xuchen Zhang ◽  
Han Mo ◽  
Yijun Niu ◽  
...  

Abstract It is believed that long-term memory (LTM) cannot be formed immediately because it must go through a protein synthesis-dependent consolidation process. However, the current study uses Drosophila aversive olfactory conditioning to show that such processes are dispensable for context-dependent LTM (cLTM). Single-trial conditioning yields cLTM that is formed immediately in a protein-synthesis independent manner and is sustained over 14 days without decay. Unlike retrieval of traditional LTM, which requires only the conditioned odour and is mediated by mushroom-body neurons, cLTM recall requires both the conditioned odour and reinstatement of the training-environmental context. It is mediated through lateral-horn neurons that connect to multiple sensory brain regions. The cLTM cannot be retrieved if synaptic transmission from any one of these centres is blocked, with effects similar to those of altered encoding context during retrieval. The present study provides strong evidence that long-term memory can be formed easily without the need for consolidation.


2011 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beat Meier ◽  
Anja König ◽  
Samuel Parak ◽  
Katharina Henke

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.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Calin-Jageman ◽  
Irina Calin-Jageman ◽  
Tania Rosiles ◽  
Melissa Nguyen ◽  
Annette Garcia ◽  
...  

[[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.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Calin-Jageman ◽  
Irina Calin-Jageman ◽  
Tania Rosiles ◽  
Melissa Nguyen ◽  
Annette Garcia ◽  
...  

[[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].


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre-Yves Plaçais ◽  
Éloïse de Tredern ◽  
Lisa Scheunemann ◽  
Séverine Trannoy ◽  
Valérie Goguel ◽  
...  

1984 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 363-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Umur Talasli

A novel encoding hypothesis that explains proactive inhibition in the Brown-Peterson paradigm was developed and tested in three experiments. This hypothesis argues that initial recall on each trial activates a pool of associates and the encoding of the next trial occurs during such activation. The encoding is facilitated and leaves a weak long-term memory trace. Build-up and release of inhibition, as well as a number of other typical results, are parsimoniously accounted for by such a mechanism. In support of the hypothesis, Exps. 1 and 2 demonstrated significant accentuation of proactive inhibition with increased activation both in the presence and absence of inter-trial category relationship. Exp. 3 showed significant attenuation of proactive inhibition as activation decayed. Increase in latency of recall with increased activation was also noted.


2021 ◽  
Vol 224 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacio L. Marchi ◽  
Florencia Palottini ◽  
Walter M. Farina

ABSTRACT The alkaloid caffeine and the amino acid arginine are present as secondary compounds in nectars of some flower species visited by pollinators. Each of these compounds affects honeybee appetitive behaviours by improving foraging activity and learning. While caffeine potentiates responses of mushroom body neurons involved in honeybee learning processes, arginine acts as precursor of nitric oxide, enhancing the protein synthesis involved in memory formation. Despite existing evidence on how these compounds affect honeybee cognitive ability individually, their combined effect on this is still unknown. We evaluated acquisition and memory retention in a classical olfactory conditioning procedure, in which the reward (sucrose solution) contained traces of caffeine, arginine or a mixture of the two. The results indicate that the presence of the single compounds and their most concentrated mixture increases bees' learning performance. However, memory retention, measured in the short and long term, increases significantly only in those treatments offering combinations of the two compounds in the reward. Additionally, the most concentrated mixture triggers a significant survival rate in the conditioned bees. Thus, some nectar compounds, when combined, show synergistic effects on cognitive ability and survival in an insect.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document