1 / 40

Memory Consolidation: Transformation

Memory Consolidation: Transformation. Collaborators Rebecca Gomez Almut Hupbach Oliver Hardt. EVENT. ENCODE. CONSOLIDATE. FIXED MEMORY. EVENT. ENCODE. CONSOLIDATE. FIXED MEMORY. REACTIVATION. SLEEP. EVENT. ENCODE. CONSOLIDATE. FIXED MEMORY. REACTIVATION. RECONSOLIDATION.

moanna
Download Presentation

Memory Consolidation: Transformation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Memory Consolidation: Transformation Collaborators Rebecca Gomez Almut Hupbach Oliver Hardt

  2. EVENT ENCODE CONSOLIDATE FIXED MEMORY

  3. EVENT ENCODE CONSOLIDATE FIXED MEMORY REACTIVATION SLEEP

  4. EVENT ENCODE CONSOLIDATE FIXED MEMORY REACTIVATION RECONSOLIDATION UNFIXED MEMORY PROTEIN SYNTHESIS INHIBITORS

  5. EVENT ENCODE CONSOLIDATE FIXED MEMORY REACTIVATION RECONSOLIDATION TRANSFORMED MEMORY NEW/ALTERED EXPERIENCE

  6. EVENT ENCODE CONSOLIDATE TRANSFORMED MEMORY REACTIVATION SLEEP

  7. Reactivation Transformation

  8. Reactivation Transformation Set 2 Set 1

  9. Basic Design

  10. Reminder Updating Effect Set 1 Items Set 2 Items % Recall N = 12 in all groups REMINDER NO REMINDER CONTROL Hupbach, Gomez, Hardt & Nadel, Learning & Memory, 2007

  11. Immediate Recall: Reconsolidation or Retroactive Inhibition N = 12 in all groups Hupbach, Gomez, Hardt & Nadel, Learning & Memory, 2007

  12. Source Confusion? Absence of intrusions from Set 1 into Set 2 -- effect is asymmetrical and not simple source confusion Set 1 Items Set 2 Items N = 12 in both groups REMIND NO REMIND Hupbach, Gomez, Hardt & Nadel, Learning & Memory, 2007

  13. Persistence of Updated Memory: Delayed RecallMonday: learn set 1Wednesday: remind or not, learn set 21 or 2 weeks later: recall either Set 1 or Set 2 The effect persists for at least 2 weeks, suggesting it is a real change in memory unpublished

  14. Persistence: Delayed Reactivation1stMonday: learn set 1 2nd Monday: remind, learn set 23rd Monday: recall Set 1 The effect can be elicited at least a week after initial storage of a memory Hupbach, Gomez, Hardt & Nadel, unpubl.

  15. What Triggers Updating?

  16. Reminder Effects - One Cue N = 12 in all groups Hupbach, Gomez, Hardt & Nadel, 2008.

  17. Reminder Effects -- Two Cues Set 1 Items Set 2 Items Context & Experimenter Context & Question Question & Experimenter N = 12 N = 8 N = 12 Hupbach, Gomez, Hardt & Nadel, 2008.

  18. Imagining Context Set 1 Items Set 2 Items N = 12 Hupbach, Gomez, Hardt & Nadel, unpubl.

  19. Conclusions re Context • Context reminder critical to updating and reconsolidation • Recall acts as another training trial, does not initiate update • In episodic memory context determines whether • new memory formed OR • old memory updated • Similar result seen in place cell “remapping” studies • BUT, a caveat re the role of context

  20. Testing in a familiar context: 5 year-olds at home Context alone fails to elicit updating in a familiar context

  21. Testing in a familiar context: 5 year-olds at home Context alone fails to elicit updating in a familiar context

  22. 5 year-olds tested in day-care setting Set 1 Items Set 2 Items REMIND NO REMIND N = 11 N = 7 But, context alone does elicit updating in an unfamiliar context

  23. Bigger Picture • Memory is not fixed - perhaps ever • Misinformation effect • Hindsight bias • Adaptive nature of memory malleability • What then is “consolidation”? • Not strengthening but transforming, assimilating

  24. Sleep Transformation Study effects of sleep by exposing infants to material prior to a nap and testing afterwards

  25. Design • Toddlers exposed to material 4 hrs before lab visit • (48 15-month-olds) • Conditions (exposure to an artificial language) • Nap • No Nap • Nap control • A Minimitter actiwatch with computer driven chip attached to infant’s ankle and used to record body movements

  26. Nonadjacent dependency learning 15-month-olds Familiarized with one of two artificial languages Gómez (2002) Gómez & Maye (2005) vot-kicey-jic, pel-wadim-rud……

  27. |X| = 3 |X| = 12 X1 X2 X3 X1 X2 X3 . . . . . X12 a a a b b b c c c d d d Variability manipulation |X| = 24 X1 X2 X3 . . . . . . . . . . . . X24 • Gómez (2002); Gómez & Maye (2005) • Nonadjacent dependencies heard equally often in each condition • Difference between conditions was size of pool from which middle element drawn. • Learners only track non-adjacencies when adjacent dependencies are sufficiently low, • when |X| = 24.

  28. |X| = 12 X1 X2 X3 . . . . . X12 a a a b b b c c c d d d Variability manipulation |X| = 3 |X| = 24 X1 X2 X3 X1 X2 X3 . . . . . . . . . . . . X24 Nap control Nap and No-nap groups

  29. Familiarization • 15-minute incidental exposure • vot wadim jic | pel kicey rud | vot coomo jic | vot kicey jic | pel gople rud | vot fengle jic | pel benez rud | pel wadim rud | vot loga jic | pel vamey rud | pel taspu rud | pel fengle rud | vot hiftam jic………. Test pel wadim rud vs. pel wadim jic

  30. Head-turn preference procedure Infant controls the amount of exposure on any given trial

  31. Veridical memory vs. abstraction • Infants could remember specific information about strings themselves • Or, could acquire a rule focusing on relationship between nonadjacent pairs. If so, they should detect nonadjacent dependencies in novel strings. • Responses scored according to veridical memory and abstraction.

  32. Predictions • Sleep (or delay) could change memory quantitatively or qualitatively • If delay is triggering factor, nap and no-nap infants will perform identically • If sleep is trigger then performance should differ between nap and no-nap conditions

  33. Naps promote abstraction! Veridical Memory * Mean looking times (sec) Abstraction: Difference conditional on first post-sleep trial * Gómez, Bootzin, & Nadel (2006)

  34. What are infants learning? • Abstraction may take form of a greater weighting given to relationship between first and third words in strings • This weighting translates into detection of nonadjacent dependencies in similar (but not identical) strings.

  35. Additional questions • Is the abstraction effect a transient one, caused by infants being more rested after a nap, or can we observed it 24 hours later before their nap? • 15-month-olds tested 24 hrs later in Nap condition • Is the abstraction effect dependent on an immediate nap, or like adults, will any sleep within a 24-hour period do? • 15-month-olds tested 24 hrs later in No-nap condition

  36. Is the effect dependent on infants being well-rested? No, it occurs 24-hours later before a new nap Veridical Memory Mean looking time differences (sec) Abstraction: Difference conditional on first post-sleep trial * Hupbach, Gómez, Bootzin, & Nadel (in press)

  37. Is the effect dependent on an immediate nap? Yes. 24-hours later there was no retention in the No-nap condition Veridical Memory Mean looking time differences (sec) Abstraction: Difference conditional on first post-sleep trial * Hupbach, Gómez, Bootzin, & Nadel (in press)

  38. Summary • Infants in Nap and No-nap conditions were exposed to an artificial language 4 or 24 hours prior to test. • No immediate nap: Infants retained veridical memory over a 4-hour delay but showed no retention over 24 hours. • Immediate nap: Sleep facilitated abstraction 4 and 24 hours after exposure.

  39. How could sleep make memory abstract? Sensitivity to both specific and abstract information initially, but weight these differently before and after sleep Forget specific details of stimulus with sleep Sleep protracts learning-dependent processing necessary for extraction of general patterns (O’Reilly & Rudy, 2000; Wilson & McNaughton, 1994)

  40. Implications • Transformation occurring with sleep introduces flexibility • Infants detected general pattern in artificial language whether it was instantiated exactly as before or not. • Abstraction is a crucial form of memory change for developing learners who must retain key aspects of experience while generalizing to new information. • Sleep appears to be instrumental in this process

More Related