von Dr. Jennifer L. Moore
Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
[1.] Jm/Fragment 006 04 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2014-02-20 21:26:39 Schumann | Fragment, Gesichtet, Hupbach et al 2007, Jm, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Verschleierung |
|
|
Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 6, Zeilen: 4-19 |
Quelle: Hupbach et al 2007 Seite(n): 47, Zeilen: l.col: 34ff |
---|---|
[For example,] Walker and colleagues (2003) demonstrated reconsolidation in humans using a procedural motor-skill task that involved finger-tapping a simple sequence (e.g., 4-1-3-2). Twenty-four hours after original exposure to the sequence, participants briefly rehearsed the sequence, thereby reactivating it, and learned a second sequence (e.g., 2-3-1-4). When tested on Day 3, accuracy performance for Sequence 1 was significantly impaired relative to control subjects who did not rehearse Sequence 1 before learning Sequence 2. This shows that the reactivation of the memory for Sequence 1 on Day 2 destabilized it such that a competing motor pattern could interfere with the memory trace. Further, Galluccio (2005) and Galluccio and Rovee-Collier (2005), adopting a conditioning-based paradigm, investigated the fate of reactivated memories in infants trained to kick their foot to activate a mobile. After a delay period, infants were reminded of the event: The moving mobile was presented for a brief period during which it was no longer attached to the baby’s foot. Following reactivation, one group of infants learned to move a novel mobile. One day later, infants who were exposed to the novel mobile showed a modification of the reactivated memory such that they no longer recognized the original mobile reacted only to the novel one. | Walker et al. (2003) recently demonstrated reconsolidation effects in humans. Participants were trained on a procedural motor-skill task that involved finger-tapping a simple sequence (e.g., 4-1-3-2). Twenty-four hours later they briefly rehearsed the sequence (reactivating it) and learned a second sequence (e.g., 2-3- 1-4). When tested on Day 3, accuracy performance for Sequence 1 was significantly impaired in comparison to a group of participants who did not rehearse Sequence 1 before learning Sequence 2. This shows that the reactivation of the memory for Sequence 1 on Day 2 destabilized it such that a competing motor pattern could interfere.
Galluccio (2005) and Galluccio and Rovee-Collier (2005) investigated the fate of reactivated memories in infants trained to kick their foot to activate a mobile. After a delay, infants were reminded of the event: The moving mobile was presented for a brief period during which it was no longer attached to the baby’s foot. After reactivation, one group of infants learned to move a novel mobile. One day later, infants who were exposed to the novel mobile showed a modification of the reactivated memory in that they no longer recognized the original mobile and solely reacted to the novel one. |
The source is not referenced. |
|
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Graf Isolan, Zeitstempel: 20140112210720