Abstract
We recently proposed that retrograde amnesia does not result from a disruption of the consolidation/reconsolidation processes but rather to the integration of the internal state induced by the amnesic treatment within the initial memory. Accordingly, the performance disruption induced by an amnesic agent does not result from a disruption of the memory fixation process, but from a difference in the internal state present during the learning phase (or reactivation) and at the later retention test: a case of state-dependency. In the present article, we will review similarities and differences these two competing views may have on memory processing. We will also consider the consequences the integration concept may have on the way memory is built, maintained and retrieved, as well as future research perspectives that such a new view may generate.
Highlights
We recently proposed that retrograde amnesia does not result from a disruption of the consolidation/reconsolidation processes but rather to the integration of the internal state induced by the amnesic treatment within the initial memory
In a recent study we showed that the administration of cycloheximide, a protein synthesis inhibitor, or of lithium chloride, a substance inducing strong nausea, delivered just after the reactivation of an inhibitory avoidance memory, induced a strong performance disruption, which was abolished by delivering again the same treatment before the retention test (Gisquet-Verrier et al, 2015)
Unlike the consolidation hypothesis which analyses retrograde amnesia and facilitative effects as resulting from two opposite causes, namely disrupting or enhancing the consolidation process, we propose that both effects result from the same process: the integration of a new information within the memory which leads to two opposite outcomes
Summary
There have been hundreds of publications describing the findings that treatments delivered after training or after the reactivation of a memory disrupt the retention performance. Memory Integration previously developed by Müller and Pilzecker (1900) whose work on retroactive interference led them to suggest that new memories are fragile, requiring time to undergo a consolidation phase before being fixed Disrupting this process by treatments interfering with the normal brain functioning was supposed to prevent memory formation and to lead to amnesia. The other would be an inactive form, typical of stored but potentially accessible memories, that would not be affected by any amnesic treatments Another finding, published around the same time, indicated that the disruption of performance was not detectable during the first few hours, but occurred only later (Geller et al, 1970; Miller and Springer, 1971, 1972; Hinderliter et al, 1975).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
