Directly reactivated, but not indirectly reactivated, memories undergo reconsolidation in the amygdala
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Memory consolidation refers to a process by which newly learned information is made resistant to disruption. Traditionally, consolidation has been viewed as an event that occurs once in the life of a memory. However, considerable evidence now indicates that consolidated memories, when reactivated through retrieval, become labile (susceptible to disruption) again and undergo reconsolidation. Because memories are often interrelated in complex associative networks rather than stored in isolation, a key question is whether reactivation of one memory makes associated memories labile in a way that requires reconsolidation. We tested this in rats by creating interlinked associative memories using a second-order fear-conditioning task. We found that directly reactivated memories become labile, but indirectly reactivated (i.e., associated) memories do not. This suggests that memory reactivation produces content-limited rather than wholesale changes in a memory and its associations and explains why each time a memory is retrieved and updated, the entire associative structure of the memory is not grossly altered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it