Activation of cortical M1 muscarinic receptors and related intracellular signaling is necessary for reactivation-induced object memory updating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reactivated long-term memories can become labile and sensitive to modification. Memories in this destabilized state can be weakened or strengthened, but there is limited research characterizing the mechanisms underlying retrieval-induced qualitative updates (i.e., information integration). We have previously implicated cholinergic transmission in object memory destabilization. Here we present a novel rodent paradigm developed to assess the role of this cholinergic mechanism in qualitative object memory updating. The post-reactivation object memory modification (PROMM) task exposes rats to contextual information following object memory reactivation. Subsequent object exploratory performance suggests that the contextual information is integrated with the original memory in a reactivation- and time-dependent manner. This effect is blocked by interference with M1 muscarinic receptors and several downstream signals in perirhinal cortex. These findings therefore demonstrate a hitherto unacknowledged cognitive function for acetylcholine with important implications for understanding the dynamic nature of long-term memory storage in the normal and aging brain.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".