English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

cific type of memory alteration (impair-ment, extinction, incorporation of new information) is dependent upon the relative localization vs. distribution of the underlying memory representations. Fear conditioning and procedural memory are supported by rather localized brain systems (fear condition-ing: basolateral amygdala, e.g., LeDoux, 2000; motor sequence learning: basal ganglia, e.g., Packard and Knowlton, 2002). In contrast, episodic memories depend on the interplay between the hippocampal proper and wide-spread neocortical areas (see, e.g., Dickerson and Eichenbaum, 2010 , for a review). Schiller and Phelps propose the following principle: the more localized a representation, the more likely behavioral interference will cause mem-ory impairment; whereas, the more distrib-uted the underlying memory representations, the more likely will behavioral interference result in integration of the new information into the reactivated memory.I suggest an alternative explanation of the different outcomes in the differ-ent paradigms used. I would like to argue that the reviewed studies do not only dif-fer with respect to the relative localization vs. distribution of brain systems involved, but also with respect to how the potentially interfering material that is presented after reactivation relates to the content of the original memory that reactivation renders labile. More specifically, although all of the reviewed studies use behavioral interference paradigms, the studies differ in the degree with which the newly presented informa-tion competes with the previously encoded information. In fear conditioning, the new information (“no shock”) is in direct com-petition with the previously learned contin-gency (“shock”), i.e., an organism cannot display both responses simultaneously (fear and no fear; although, interestingly, there is a dissociation between the physi-ological response and explicit knowledge of the contingency). In procedural memory,

The Specific Outcomes of Reactivation-Induced Memory Changes Depend on the Degree of Competition between Old and New Information