Changes in context-specificity during memory reconsolidation: Selective effects of hippocampal lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After acquisition, memories associated with contextual fear conditioning pass through a labile phase, in which they are vulnerable to hippocampal lesions, to a more stable state, via consolidation, in which they engage extrahippocampal structures and are resistant to such disruption. The process is accompanied by changes in the form of the memory from being context-specific to context-general. However, when revived by a reminder, stable memories once again become labile and susceptible to hippocampal disruption, and memory reconsolidation is needed to stabilize them. This study addressed two questions with respect to this reconsolidation phenomenon: (1) How do reminders reinstate a hippocampally dependent memory trace? (2) As the memory changes from a stable to a labile state after a reminder, does its form remain invariant, or does it also change? Using contextual manipulations at retrieval in a test of contextual fear conditioning, we showed that when the fear-conditioning environment served as a reminder, the reinstated memory regained its context specificity and, as a result, became vulnerable again to the effects of hippocampal lesions. By comparison, exposure to a different environment during the reminder session reinstated a version of the original memory that was dependent primarily on general features of the original context and, consequently, was less affected by hippocampal lesions. These findings, which relate loss of reactivated memories after hippocampal destruction (or inactivation) to changes in memory representation, are interpreted as consistent with the transformation hypothesis of memory processing.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".