Cited by 63Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeural dynamics and brain function

A mismatch-based model for memory reconsolidation and extinction in attractor networks

Open access
Osan, Remus, Tort, Adriano B. L., Amaral, Olavo B.·2011·PLoS ONE

Abstract

The processes of memory reconsolidation and extinction have received increasing attention in recent experimental research, as their potential clinical applications begin to be uncovered. A number of studies suggest that amnestic drugs injected after reexposure to a learning context can disrupt either of the two processes, depending on the behavioral protocol employed. Hypothesizing that reconsolidation represents updating of a memory trace in the hippocampus, while extinction represents formation of a new trace, we have built a neural network model in which either simple retrieval, reconsolidation or extinction of a stored attractor can occur upon contextual reexposure, depending on the similarity between the representations of the original learning and reexposure sessions. This is achieved by assuming that independent mechanisms mediate Hebbian-like synaptic strengthening and mismatch-driven labilization of synaptic changes, with protein synthesis inhibition preferentially affecting the former. Our framework provides a unified mechanistic explanation for experimental data showing (a) the effect of reexposure duration on the occurrence of reconsolidation or extinction and (b) the requirement of memory updating during reexposure to drive reconsolidation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0023113

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Destabilisation of the original CS-US memory at retrieval relies upon a specific amount of prediction error-enough for the original memory to be sufficiently inaccurate to require updating, but not so much that the experience is consolidated as a new memory.

    “Studies in both vertebrates and invertebrates have shown that destabilisation of the original CS-US memory at retrieval relies upon a specific amount of prediction error—enough for the original memory to be sufficiently inaccurate to require updating, but not so much that the experience is consolidated as a new memory (see Osan et al., 2011; Gershman et al., 2017 for computational perspectives on”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 98 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [26]Tsodyks M 1999 Attractor neural network models of spatial maps in hippocampus. Hippocampus 9 481 489 10495029
  2. [63]Wagner JJ Alger BE 1996 Homosynaptic LTD and depotentiation: Do they differ in name only? Hippocampus 6 24 29 8878738

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Osan, R., Tort, A. B. L., & Amaral, O. B.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (BR)
  • Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
Corresponding author
Amaral, Olavo B.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2011-08-03
Volume
6
Issue
8
Pages
e23113
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2081961955
Cited by
63
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
memory reconsolidation, memory extinction, attractor networks, neural network model, hippocampus, protein synthesis inhibition
MeSH terms
Humans, Memory, Models, Theoretical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review