On the Dynamic Nature of the Engram: Evidence for Circuit-Level Reorganization of Object Memory Traces following Reactivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has implicated the perirhinal cortex (PRh) in several aspects of object recognition memory. The specific role of the hippocampus (HPC) remains controversial, but its involvement in object recognition may pertain to processing contextual information in relation to objects rather than object representation per se. Here we investigated the roles of the PRh and HPC in object memory reconsolidation using the spontaneous object recognition task for rats. Intra-PRh infusions of the protein synthesis inhibitor anisomycin immediately following memory reactivation prevented object memory reconsolidation. Similar deficits were observed when a novel object or a salient contextual change was introduced during the reactivation phase. Intra-HPC infusions of anisomycin, however, blocked object memory reconsolidation only when a contextual change was introduced during reactivation. Moreover, disrupting functional interaction between the HPC and PRh by infusing anisomycin unilaterally into each structure in opposite hemispheres also impaired reconsolidation when reactivation was done in an altered context. These results show for the first time that the PRh is critical for reconsolidation of object memory traces and provide insight into the dynamic process of object memory storage; the selective requirement for hippocampal involvement following reactivation in an altered context suggests a substantial circuit level object trace reorganization whereby an initially PRh-dependent object memory becomes reliant on both the HPC and PRh and their interaction. Such trace reorganization may play a central role in reconsolidation-mediated memory updating and could represent an important aspect of lingering consolidation processes proposed to underlie long-term memory modulation and stabilization.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".