ISDN2014_0244: Role of adaptor complex AP2 in dendritic arbor formation

of composite, 6-elements, sequences. The performance of movement elements within the composite sequences was slower and less accurate compared to the performance of the identical movement elements in the trained subsequences. Integration was as effective when the two subsequences were concatenated in the order in which instruction and training was afforded (Full), as when the order between subsequences was switched (Reversed). These partial gains were dependent on maintaining the order of the movement elements within the two subsequences; when the order of the elements was mirror-reversed within each subsequence, the performance of the resulting 6-element sequence (Mirror) was the slowest. However, the relative advantage of Full and Reversed sequences over Mirror was the result of a brief test of the Full, composite, sequence, afforded immediately after training on the two subsequences. This brief experience induced clear between-session (‘offline’) gains, as expressed in overnight performance, in both the Full and Reversed sequences. Without this brief experience in integration, no overnight gains were expressed in any of the 6-elements sequences. Thus, training on subsequences may not spontaneously lead to an advantage in the performance of composite sequences, in children. However, an early brief experience with a composite sequence can suffice to trigger the establishment and consolidation of an integration routine. This routine is specific for the order of movement with the trained subsequences, but not for the order in which the subsequences were learned.