Cited by 105Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesSchizophrenia research and treatment

Ketamine effects on memory reconsolidation favor a learning model of delusions

Open access
Corlett, Philip R., Cambridge, Victoria, Gardner, Jennifer M., Piggot, Jennifer S., Turner, Danielle C., Everitt, Jessica C., Arana, Fernando Sergio, Morgan, Hannah L. +11 more·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Delusions are the persistent and often bizarre beliefs that characterise psychosis. Previous studies have suggested that their emergence may be explained by disturbances in prediction error-dependent learning. Here we set up complementary studies in order to examine whether such a disturbance also modulates memory reconsolidation and hence explains their remarkable persistence. First, we quantified individual brain responses to prediction error in a causal learning task in 18 human subjects (8 female). Next, a placebo-controlled within-subjects study of the impact of ketamine was set up on the same individuals. We determined the influence of this NMDA receptor antagonist (previously shown to induce aberrant prediction error signal and lead to transient alterations in perception and belief) on the evolution of a fear memory over a 72 hour period: they initially underwent Pavlovian fear conditioning; 24 hours later, during ketamine or placebo administration, the conditioned stimulus (CS) was presented once, without reinforcement; memory strength was then tested again 24 hours later. Re-presentation of the CS under ketamine led to a stronger subsequent memory than under placebo. Moreover, the degree of strengthening correlated with individual vulnerability to ketamine's psychotogenic effects and with prediction error brain signal. This finding was partially replicated in an independent sample with an appetitive learning procedure (in 8 human subjects, 4 female). These results suggest a link between altered prediction error, memory strength and psychosis. They point to a core disruption that may explain not only the emergence of delusional beliefs but also their persistence.

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.0065088

Cites

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?

  • The persistence of delusions suggests an excessive influence of delusional beliefs on the perception of new information, which would entail an increased precision of delusion-related priors.

    “This suggests an excessive influence of delusional beliefs on the perception of new information (see e.g. (102)), which would entail an increased precision of delusion-related priors.”

    From The Predictive Coding Account of Psychosis (2018) · cites this paper as [102]

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 114 · Cited by 105

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [34]Jaspers K (1963) General Psychopathology: Manchester University Press.

Authors
Corlett, P. R., Cambridge, V., Gardner, J. M., Piggot, J. S., Turner, D. C., Everitt, J. C., Arana, F. S., Morgan, H. L., Milton, A. L., Lee, J. L., Aitken, M. R. F., Dickinson, A., Everitt, B. J., Absalom, A. R., Adapa, R., Subramanian, N., Taylor, J. R., Krystal, J. H., & Fletcher, P. C.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Corlett, Philip R.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-06-12
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
e65088
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2159175063
Cited by
105
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 2
FWCI
7.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • AstraZeneca
  • Wellcome Trust (095692/Z/11/Z, 095692)
  • Pfizer Pharmaceuticals
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
ketamine, memory reconsolidation, delusions, psychosis, prediction error, NMDA receptor antagonists, fear memory, fear conditioning, appetitive learning, belief persistence
MeSH terms
Adult, Association Learning, Conditioning, Classical, Delusions, Fear, Female, Humans, Ketamine, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Case-Control Studies, Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate

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