Characteristics of Tip of the Tongue Phenomenon on the Task of Naming Celebrities in Healthy Elderly Adults

Objectives: In general, the incidence of Tip of the tongue (TOT) phenomenon increases with age, but studies on the difference in the incidence of TOT phenomenon according to the age of healthy elderly adults are limited. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence and resolution rate of the TOT, and to find out the change in performance according to the syllabic clues.Methods: Ninety-six healthy elderly people whose age range was between 65 and 84 years old participated in the study. Participants were divided into three groups: 55-64 years old, 65-74 years old, and 75-84 years old age range groups. The TOT task used 30 questions about celebrity naming organized by period and category.Results: First, there was a significant difference of the TOT rate by age group, and as the age increased, the TOT rate due to partial retrieval failure and total retrieval failure increased. Second, the rate of TOT response type that explained the celebrity’s occupation was the highest in all groups. Third, there were significant differences between groups in both the voluntary TOT resolution rate and the TOT resolution rate after providing the syllabic clue. The recovery rate after the syllabic clues decreased with increasing age.Conclusion: This study observed the difference in characteristics of TOT phenomenon in elderly adults according to age group and the importance of phonological clues in TOT phenomenon resolution.

Semen biomarker TEX101 predicts sperm retrieval success for men with testicular failure

Background: Azoospermia could be due to either obstruction (obstructive azoospermia: OA) or spermatogenic failure (non-obstructive azoospermia: NOA). Close to 50% of men with NOA have small pockets of sperm in the testis which could be retrieved surgically and then injected into oocytes in a program of intra-cytoplasmic sperm insertion. Presently, there are no accepted non-invasive tests allowing clinicians to predict the success rates of sperm retrieval. Previously, we have identified a germ cell-specific protein TEX101 in semen found in the primary spermatocytes and more mature sperm forms, but not in spermatogonia, Sertoli or Leydig cells. We hypothesized that the semen concentration of TEX101 could be used to predict sperm production in men with NOA. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study on men with NOA being treated at a male infertility centre. Men with NOA planning sperm retrieval provided 1–3 semen samples prior to surgery. Semen TEX101 concentrations were measured by an in-house-developed ELISA assay and compared with the results of the surgery to retrieve sperm. Results: 20/60 karyotypically normal men with NOA had semen TEX101 < LOD (<0.2ng/mL). Of these, 0% had successful sperm retrieval(0-17%: 95% CI) . In contrast, of the 40 men with TEX101> LOD, sperm was found in 50% (34-66%: 95% CI, sig diff. Fisher’s exact test, p<0.05). Conclusions: Undetectable (<0.2 ng/mL) semen TEX101 is highly predictive of sperm retrieval failure for karyotypically normal men with NOA and is the single strongest non-invasive predictor of sperm retrieval failure reported so far. Semen TEX101 concentration will help couples decide their individual chances of successful sperm retrieval.

A network model of retrieval failures: Moving forward with incorporating clinical data

Understanding retrieval failures requires a cognitive model that considers not just impaired processes, but also the role of structure. The development of a network model of retrieval failures requires the inclusion of clinical data, but there remain methodological issues in using and interpreting such data: locus of retrieval failure, heterogeneity of individuals, and progression of disorder/disease. Techniques from network science may prove useful in addressing these issues, while capturing the complexity of language disorders. Critically, any network model we employ could have downstream impact on clinical practice, which ultimately impacts patient lives, harkening the need for theoretically well-informed network models.

Analysis on Factors of Forgetting and Three Ways for Effective Memory

Psychologists often attribute the term 'memory' to the retention of information like knowledge or experience. This paper focuses on the reason why not only older people but also the younger generation have been reported that they often forget about certain things that happened before or not happened yet. This paper includes the methods of comparing several data from different studies and citing many conclusions in other studies. This paper presents current knowledge about how and why people usually forget. The conclusion I draw from this whole process of writing is that the factors such as the aging, stress and emotion, encoding failure, storage failure, and the retrieval failure can influence differently on the retain of the memory. But, still, we have some solutions to do our utmost in reducing their effects.

Registered Report: Transcriptional Analysis of Savings Memory Suggests Forgetting Is Due to Retrieval Failure

[[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.

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.

Stage 1 Registered Report Manuscript - Transcriptional Correlates of Savings Memory: Is Forgetting Due to Decay or Retrieval Failure?

[[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].