Neurogenesis-mediated forgetting of complex paired-associates memories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The hippocampus is a critical structure involved in many forms of learning and memory. It is also one of the only regions in the adult mammalian brain that continues to generate new neurons throughout adulthood. This process of adult neurogenesis may increase the plasticity of the hippocampus which could be beneficial for learning but has also been demonstrated to decrease the stability of previously acquired memories. Here we test whether increased production of new neurons following the formation of a gradually acquired paired-associates task will result in forgetting of this type of memory. We trained mice in a touchscreen-based object/location task and then increased neurogenesis using voluntary exercise. Our results indicate that mice with increased neurogenesis show poor recall of the previously established memory. When subsequently exposed to a reversal task we also show that mice with increased neurogenesis require fewer correction trials to acquire the new task contingencies. This suggests that prior forgetting reduces perseveration on the now outdated memory. Together our results add to a growing body of literature which indicates the important role of adult neurogenesis in destabilizing previously acquired memories to allow for flexible encoding of new memories.
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) | 0.002 | 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".