Journal
NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
Volume 68, Issue -, Pages 423-441Publisher
PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.004
Keywords
Conditioning models; Dopamine; Expectation; Hippocampus; Prediction Error; Memory labilization; Memory reactivation; Memory reconsolidation; Memory strengthening; Memory updating; Reminder; Surprise
Categories
Funding
- FONCYT [PICT2010-0391, PICT 2012-0117, PICT 2013-0412]
- grant UBACyT [20020130100881BA]
- ANPCyT PICT [2013-0375]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The ability to make predictions based on stored information is a general coding strategy. A Prediction Error (PE) is a mismatch between expected and current events. It was proposed as the process by which memories are acquired. But, our memories like ourselves are subject to change. Thus, an acquired memory can become active and update its content or strength by a labilization-reconsolidation process. Within the reconsolidation framework, PE drives the updating of consolidated memories. Moreover, memory features, such as strength and age, are crucial boundary conditions that limit the initiation of the reconsolidation process. In order to disentangle these boundary conditions, we review the role of surprise, classical models of conditioning, and their neural correlates. Several forms of PE were found to be capable of inducing memory labilization-reconsolidation. Notably, many of the PE findings mirror those of memory-reconsolidation, suggesting a strong link between these signals and memory process. Altogether, the aim of the present work is to integrate a psychological and neuroscientific analysis of PE into a general framework for memory-reconsolidation. (C) 2016. Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available