Characterization of Fear Memory Reconsolidation
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
Reactivation of consolidated memories returns them to a protein synthesis-dependent state. One interpretation of these findings is that the memory reconsolidates after use. Two alternative interpretations are that protein synthesis inhibition facilitates extinction and that postreactivation protein synthesis inhibition leads to an inability to retrieve the consolidated memory. First, using two different approaches, we report that reconsolidation cannot be reduced down to facilitated extinction. We show that the reconsolidation deficit does not show renewal after a contextual shift, whereas an extinguished auditory fear memory does under the same conditions and the deficit occurs regardless of whether the memory is reactivated with an extinction [conditioned stimulus (CS) alone] or a reinforced trial (CS-unconditioned stimulus). To address the issue of whether postreactivation anisomycin leads to an inability to retrieve the consolidated memory, we used two traditional assays for retrieval deficits. First, we demonstrate that the amnesia induced by blockade of reconsolidation does not show any spontaneous recovery. Second, we show that application of reminder shock does not result in the reinstatement of the memory. These findings support the idea that reactivation of consolidated memories initiates a second time-dependent memory formation process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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