The Black Box effect: sensory stimulation after learning interferes with the retention of long-term object location memory in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reducing sensory experiences during the period that immediately follows learning improves long-term memory retention in healthy humans, and even preserves memory in patients with amnesia. To date, it is entirely unclear why this is the case, and identifying the neurobiological mechanisms underpinning this effect requires suitable animal models, which are currently lacking. Here, we describe a straightforward experimental procedure in rats that future studies can use to directly address this issue. Using this method, we replicated the central findings on quiet wakefulness obtained in humans: We show that rats that spent 1 h alone in a familiar dark and quiet chamber (the Black Box) after exploring two objects in an open field expressed long-term memory for the object locations 6 h later, while rats that instead directly went back into their home cage with their cage mates did not. We discovered that both visual stimulation and being together with conspecifics contributed to the memory loss in the home cage, as exposing rats either to light or to a cage mate in the Black Box was sufficient to disrupt memory for object locations. Our results suggest that in both rats and humans, everyday sensory experiences that normally follow learning in natural settings can interfere with processes that promote long-term memory retention, thereby causing forgetting in form of retroactive interference. The processes involved in this effect are not sleep-dependent because we prevented sleep in periods of reduced sensory experience. Our findings, which also have implications for research practices, describe a potentially useful method to study the neurobiological mechanisms that might explain why normal sensory processing after learning impairs memory both in healthy humans and in patients suffering from amnesia.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".