FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2208529056> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2208529056 endingPage "105" @default.
• W2208529056 startingPage "100" @default.
• W2208529056 abstract "•Learning can transfer from a word list to a motor skill memory task, and vice versa•The transfer of learning only occurs when memories are unstable•Only the common high-level features of the memories are transferred•High-level representations are therefore created when memories are unstable A memory is unstable, making it susceptible to interference and disruption, after its acquisition [1Robertson E.M. New insights in human memory interference and consolidation.Curr. Biol. 2012; 22: R66-R71Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (101) Google Scholar, 2Robertson E.M. Pascual-Leone A. Miall R.C. Current concepts in procedural consolidation.Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2004; 5: 576-582Crossref PubMed Scopus (361) Google Scholar, 3Walker M.P. A refined model of sleep and the time course of memory formation.Behav. Brain Sci. 2005; 28 (discussion 64–104): 51-64PubMed Google Scholar, 4Dayan E. Cohen L.G. Neuroplasticity subserving motor skill learning.Neuron. 2011; 72: 443-454Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (767) Google Scholar]. The function or possible benefit of a memory being unstable at its acquisition is not well understood. Potentially, instability may be critical for the communication between recently acquired memories, which would allow learning in one task to be transferred to the other subsequent task [1Robertson E.M. New insights in human memory interference and consolidation.Curr. Biol. 2012; 22: R66-R71Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (101) Google Scholar, 5Cohen D.A. Robertson E.M. Preventing interference between different memory tasks.Nat. Neurosci. 2011; 14: 953-955Crossref PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar]. Learning may be transferred between any memories that are unstable, even between different types of memory. Here, we test the link between a memory being unstable and the transfer of learning to a different type of memory task. We measured how learning in one task transferred to and thus improved learning in a subsequent task. There was transfer from a motor skill to a word list task and, vice versa, from a word list to a motor skill task. What was transferred was a high-level relationship between elements, rather than knowledge of the individual elements themselves. Memory instability was correlated with subsequent transfer, suggesting that transfer was related to the instability of the memory. Using different methods, we stabilized the initial memory, preventing it from being susceptible to interference, and found that these methods consistently prevented transfer to the subsequent memory task. This suggests that the transfer of learning across diverse tasks is due to a high-level representation that can only be formed when a memory is unstable. Our work has identified an important function of memory instability. A memory is unstable, making it susceptible to interference and disruption, after its acquisition [1Robertson E.M. New insights in human memory interference and consolidation.Curr. Biol. 2012; 22: R66-R71Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (101) Google Scholar, 2Robertson E.M. Pascual-Leone A. Miall R.C. Current concepts in procedural consolidation.Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2004; 5: 576-582Crossref PubMed Scopus (361) Google Scholar, 3Walker M.P. A refined model of sleep and the time course of memory formation.Behav. Brain Sci. 2005; 28 (discussion 64–104): 51-64PubMed Google Scholar, 4Dayan E. Cohen L.G. Neuroplasticity subserving motor skill learning.Neuron. 2011; 72: 443-454Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (767) Google Scholar]. The function or possible benefit of a memory being unstable at its acquisition is not well understood. Potentially, instability may be critical for the communication between recently acquired memories, which would allow learning in one task to be transferred to the other subsequent task [1Robertson E.M. New insights in human memory interference and consolidation.Curr. Biol. 2012; 22: R66-R71Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (101) Google Scholar, 5Cohen D.A. Robertson E.M. Preventing interference between different memory tasks.Nat. Neurosci. 2011; 14: 953-955Crossref PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar]. Learning may be transferred between any memories that are unstable, even between different types of memory. Here, we test the link between a memory being unstable and the transfer of learning to a different type of memory task. We measured how learning in one task transferred to and thus improved learning in a subsequent task. There was transfer from a motor skill to a word list task and, vice versa, from a word list to a motor skill task. What was transferred was a high-level relationship between elements, rather than knowledge of the individual elements themselves. Memory instability was correlated with subsequent transfer, suggesting that transfer was related to the instability of the memory. Using different methods, we stabilized the initial memory, preventing it from being susceptible to interference, and found that these methods consistently prevented transfer to the subsequent memory task. This suggests that the transfer of learning across diverse tasks is due to a high-level representation that can only be formed when a memory is unstable. Our work has identified an important function of memory instability. We tested the idea that a memory being unstable and susceptible to interference from a subsequent memory was necessary for learning to transfer across memory tasks. Learning transfer occurred when learning in the first task led to enhanced learning in the subsequent novel task, and memory instability was measured as the impairment in performance between testing and subsequent retesting [1Robertson E.M. New insights in human memory interference and consolidation.Curr. Biol. 2012; 22: R66-R71Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (101) Google Scholar, 6Seidler R.D. Multiple motor learning experiences enhance motor adaptability.J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2004; 16: 65-73Crossref PubMed Scopus (95) Google Scholar]. Participants learned, at 9 a.m., one memory task, followed by another, and were retested 12 hr later, at 9 p.m., on the initial memory task (please see the Supplemental Experimental Procedures). The memory tasks had either the same or different high-level structures. A motor sequence and a word list can share a common structure by assigning each of the positions within the motor sequence (designated 1 to 4) to one of the four semantic categories in the word list. For example, a specific vegetable can replace each position 1 within the motor sequence so that the first position 1 is replaced by turnip, whereas the second position 1 is replaced by spinach. Different semantic categories can be assigned to each of the other three positions, and each position can be replaced by a unique word from that category (for details, please see the Supplemental Experimental Procedures and Figure S1). By assigning semantic categories to each of the four positions (1 to 4) we generated a word list with the same temporal structure as a motor sequence. We first tested for the transfer of learning from a word list to a motor skill task (Figure 1A). As training progressed across the three practice blocks, the improvement in motor skill was significantly greater when the earlier word list and subsequent motor sequence shared a common structure (repeated-measures ANOVA, learning × group; F(2,52) = 4.2, p = 0.02; Figures 1B and S2). By the final block, participants’ motor skill and recall of the sequence was substantially greater when the word list and motor sequence shared a common structure than when they had different structures (motor skill: unpaired t test, 136 ± 17 ms versus 73 ± 12 ms, mean ± SEM; t(26) = 2.96, p = 0.006; sequence recall: unpaired t test, 4 ± 1.2 versus 0.6 ± 0.4 items; t(26) = 2.5, p = 0.019; Figures 1B and S3). There was no significant difference in total word recall (unpaired t test; 10.8 ± 0.4 versus 10.8 ± 0.3; t(26) < 0.1, p > 0.9), serial word recall (unpaired t test; 7.5 ± 0.8 versus 6.9 ± 1; t(26) = 0.471, p = 0.641), or the initial motor skill (unpaired t test; 36 ± 11 ms versus 33 ± 10 ms; t(26) = 0.171, p = 0.866) between the two groups. Learning two tasks with different structures may have impaired subsequent learning in the motor task; however, when the word list had no consistent structure (none group; Figure 1B), the subsequent motor skill and sequence recall was still significantly less than when the two tasks shared the same structure (unpaired t tests; 136 ± 17 ms versus 64 ± 9 ms; t(24) = 3.51, p = 0.002; 4 ± 1.2 items versus 0.5 ± 0.3 items; t(24) = 2.48; p = 0.02; Figures 1B and S3). Thus, learning can transfer from a word list to a motor skill when they share a common structure. We then reversed the order of the tasks to test for learning transfer from a motor skill to a word list task (Figure 1C). As learning progressed across the five iterations of the word list, serial recall increased significantly more when the motor sequence and word list had the same, rather than a different, structure (repeated-measures ANOVAs, learning × group; serial recall: F(3.1,104) = 3.885, p = 0.011), although total recall did not differ (F(2.3,104) = 1.47, p = 0.235). At the final recall, there was significantly greater serial, but not total, recall of the word list when the motor sequence and word list shared a common structure than when they had different structures (unpaired t tests; serial recall: 7.5 ± 0.8 versus 4.7 ± 0.8; t(26) = 2.24, p = 0.034; total recall: 10.7 ± 0.3 versus 10 ± 0.4; t(26) = 1.537, p = 0.136; Figure 1D). There was no significant difference in the motor skill acquired by participants (unpaired t test; 78 ± 7 ms versus 70 ± 11 ms; t(26) = 0.603, p = 0.552) or in the initial serial (unpaired t test; 2.8 ± 0.5 versus 2 ± 0.3; t(26) = 1.385, p = 0.178) and total (unpaired t test; 5.9 ± 0.4 versus 6.5 ± 0.4; t(26) = 1, p = 0.322) word recall between the two groups. The greater serial recall was dependent upon the two tasks sharing a common structure. The serial, but not total, recall decreased significantly when we replaced the motor sequence task with a task that still required motor responses but had no repeating sequential structure (unpaired t tests; serial recall: 7.5 ± 0.88 versus 4.8 ± 0.5; t(26) = 2.56, p = 0.016; total recall: 10.7 ± 0.28 versus 10.0 ± 0.33; t(26) = 1.61, p = 0.12). Thus, learning on a motor sequence can transfer, enhancing the subsequent acquisition of word order, when the two tasks share the same structure. When a memory is unstable, susceptible to interference, as shown, for example, by a decrease in its subsequent recall, it may exchange information with, and so allow learning to be transferred to, another memory task. We found that the transfer of learning from the word list task to the motor skill task was correlated with a decrease in serial recall (F(1,12) = 5.42, p = 0.038, R = 0.558; Figures 2A and 2B ; for further analysis, see the figure legend). By contrast, when there was no transfer of learning to the motor task, we found that motor skill was not correlated with a decrease in serial recall (F(1,12) < 0.1, p = 0.994, R = 0.002; Figure 2B). Thus, the instability of a word list memory, its susceptibility to interference, may be linked to learning transfer. We tested this idea further by preventing interference of the word list task and observing its effect on transfer to the motor skill task. When a 2 hr interval was placed between the word list and motor sequence tasks, there was no significant decrease in serial word recall (6.1 ± 1 versus 6.2 ± 1.1 words; paired t test, t(13) = 0.234, p = 0.818), and the impairment in serial word recall was significantly less than when the tasks had been learned in quick succession (−1.78 ± 0.36 versus 0.1 ± 0.6; unpaired t test, t(26) = 2.7, p = 0.012; Figure 2C). Despite the 2 hr interval, participants continued to be retested 12 hr after initial learning (i.e., at 9 p.m.). Prevention of interference of word recall also prevented transfer to the motor skill task. Motor skill and sequence recall were both significantly less when the 2 hr interval was inserted than when the tasks were learned in quick succession (unpaired t test; 136 ± 17 ms versus 72 ± 7 ms; t(26) = 3.41, p = 0.002; unpaired t test; 3.9 ± 1.2 items versus 0.28 ± 0.28 items; t(26) = 2.85, p = 0.008; Figure 2A). Initial serial recall did not differ significantly between the groups (7.5 ± 0.8 versus 6.1 ± 1; unpaired t test, t(26) = 1, p = 0.3). Thus, when the word list memory was stable and no longer susceptible to interference, there was no transfer to the motor sequence task. To further confirm that diminished interference, rather than some other aspect of inserting the 2 hr interval, was responsible for preventing transfer, we used an additional technique to alter interference between the tasks. Subtle changes to the structure of the motor sequence modify the circuits supporting motor learning from being overlapping with those critical to word list learning to being largely independent with less overlap between the circuits. We predicted that these changes would diminish the interference between the different memory tasks ([7Curran T. Higher-order associative learning in amnesia: evidence from the serial reaction time task.J. Cogn. Neurosci. 1997; 9: 522-533Crossref PubMed Scopus (122) Google Scholar, 8Schendan H.E. Searl M.M. Melrose R.J. Stern C.E. An FMRI study of the role of the medial temporal lobe in implicit and explicit sequence learning.Neuron. 2003; 37: 1013-1025Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (466) Google Scholar]; for a review, see [9Robertson E.M. The serial reaction time task: implicit motor skill learning?.J. Neurosci. 2007; 27: 10073-10075Crossref PubMed Scopus (293) Google Scholar]; please also see “Interference between the memory tasks” in the Supplemental Experimental Procedures). As predicted, the changes prevented interference. We found no significant change in serial word recall (6.5 ± 0.9 versus 6.3 ± 0.5; paired t test, t(11) = 0.227, p = 0.787), and the decrease in serial recall was significantly greater when the tasks had not been modified (−1.78 ± 0.4 versus −0.16 ± 0.6; unpaired t test, t(24) = 2.38, p = 0.025; Figure 2C). Prevention of interference also prevented the transfer to the motor task. The motor skill and sequence recall were substantially less for the modified tasks, which did not show interference of serial recall, than for the unmodified tasks, which did show interference (unpaired t test; 136 ± 17 ms versus 68 ± 15 ms; t(24) = 3.05, p = 0.006; 3.9 ± 1.2 items versus 1.0 ± 0.5 items; t(24) = 2.16, p = 0.04; Figures 2A and 2C). At initial testing, serial word recall did not differ significantly between the modified and unmodified groups (7.5 ± 0.8 versus 6.5 ± 0.9; unpaired t test, t(24) = 0.857, p = 0.4). In sum, we used two different methods to prevent the word list memory from being susceptible to interference. Despite being very different, both methods offer convergent findings, having the same effect of preventing transfer to the motor sequence task. The instability of the word list memory was also correlated with the transfer to the motor learning task (see Figure 2B). Thus, multiple lines of evidence come together to demonstrate the importance of a word list memory being unstable for learning transfer to the motor sequence task. When we reversed the order of the memory tasks, we found a similar link between learning transfer and interference. We found that the transfer of learning to the word list task was correlated with the change in motor skill (F(1,12) = 6.43, p = 0.026, R = 0.590; Figured 3A and 3B). By contrast, when there was no transfer of learning to the word list task, we found that the serial word recall was not correlated with the change in motor skill (F(1,12) = 0.12, p = 0.736, R = 0.099; Figure 3B). Thus, the instability of a motor skill memory, its susceptibility to interference, may be linked to learning transfer. We tested for a possible link between the instability of a motor skill memory and the transfer of learning to a word list memory task. A motor skill memory can show off-line improvements that develop between testing and subsequent retesting 8–12 hr later; however, because the motor skill memory is still unstable, these improvements can be disrupted and impaired due to interference ([10Robertson E.M. Pascual-Leone A. Press D.Z. Awareness modifies the skill-learning benefits of sleep.Curr. Biol. 2004; 14: 208-212Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, 11Cohen D.A. Pascual-Leone A. Press D.Z. Robertson E.M. Off-line learning of motor skill memory: a double dissociation of goal and movement.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2005; 102: 18237-18241Crossref PubMed Scopus (203) Google Scholar, 12Spencer R.M. Sunm M. Ivry R.B. Sleep-dependent consolidation of contextual learning.Curr. Biol. 2006; 16: 1001-1005Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (97) Google Scholar, 13Brown R.M. Robertson E.M. Off-line processing: reciprocal interactions between declarative and procedural memories.J. Neurosci. 2007; 27: 10468-10475Crossref PubMed Scopus (148) Google Scholar, 14Song S. Howard Jr., J.H. Howard D.V. Sleep does not benefit probabilistic motor sequence learning.J. Neurosci. 2007; 27: 12475-12483Crossref PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar, 15Abe M. Schambra H. Wassermann E.M. Luckenbaugh D. Schweighofer N. Cohen L.G. Reward improves long-term retention of a motor memory through induction of offline memory gains.Curr. Biol. 2011; 21: 557-562Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (195) Google Scholar]; for reviews, see [1Robertson E.M. New insights in human memory interference and consolidation.Curr. Biol. 2012; 22: R66-R71Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (101) Google Scholar, 2Robertson E.M. Pascual-Leone A. Miall R.C. Current concepts in procedural consolidation.Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2004; 5: 576-582Crossref PubMed Scopus (361) Google Scholar, 3Walker M.P. A refined model of sleep and the time course of memory formation.Behav. Brain Sci. 2005; 28 (discussion 64–104): 51-64PubMed Google Scholar, 4Dayan E. Cohen L.G. Neuroplasticity subserving motor skill learning.Neuron. 2011; 72: 443-454Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (767) Google Scholar]). We sought to prevent interference of the motor skill task, allowing the development of off-line improvements, by inserting a 2 hr interval between the tasks or modifying the order of elements within the tasks. Both of these approaches had been used successfully to prevent interference in the earlier experiments. Introduction of a 2 hr interval between the tasks allowed the development of motor skill improvements between testing and subsequent retesting (paired t test; 72 ± 9 ms versus 103 ± 9 ms; t(13) = 3.835, p = 0.002; [5Cohen D.A. Robertson E.M. Preventing interference between different memory tasks.Nat. Neurosci. 2011; 14: 953-955Crossref PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar, 13Brown R.M. Robertson E.M. Off-line processing: reciprocal interactions between declarative and procedural memories.J. Neurosci. 2007; 27: 10468-10475Crossref PubMed Scopus (148) Google Scholar]), which were significantly greater than when the tasks were learned in quick succession (unpaired t test; −2 ± 9 ms versus 30 ± 8 ms; t(26) = 2.65, p = 0.013; Figure 3C). At initial testing, motor skill did not differ significantly between the groups (unpaired t test; 78 ± 8 ms versus 72 ± 9 ms; t(26) = 0.517, p = 0.609). Preventing interference of the off-line improvements also prevented learning transfer to the word list task. The serial word recall was significantly smaller when there was a 2 hr interval than when the tasks were learned in quick succession (unpaired t test; 7.5 ± 0.88 versus 4.7 ± 0.81; t(26) = 2.254, p = 0.033; Figure 3A). Similarly, modification of the order of elements within the tasks prevented interference, as it had done in the earlier experiments. Off-line improvements developed between testing and retesting (paired t test; 72 ± 7.5 versus 102 ± 12.1; t(13) = 2.626, p = 0.021), and these improvements were significantly greater than in unmodified tasks (unpaired t test; −2 ± 9 ms versus 29 ± 11 ms; t(26) = 2.165, p = 0.04; Figure 3C). Preventing interference of the off-line motor skill improvements also prevented transfer to the word list task. Serial word recall was significantly greater when the tasks were unmodified, rather than modified (unpaired t test; 7.5 ± 0.88 versus 4.8 ± 0.53; t(26) = 2.565; p = 0.016; Figure 3C). The initial motor skill did not differ significantly between the modified and unmodified tasks (unpaired t test; 78 ± 7 ms versus 72 ± 7 ms; t(26) = 0.587, p = 0.562). Using two different methods, we prevented the motor skill memory from being susceptible to interference, allowing the development of off-line improvements, and both of those methods had the same consistent effect of preventing transfer to the word list task. The interference of the off-line improvements was also correlated with the subsequent transfer to the word list learning task (see Figure 3B). In sum, evidence from across all the experiments converges to demonstrate that only when a memory is unstable can learning be transferred to another memory task. By being unstable, a newly acquired memory is susceptible to interference, which can impair its subsequent retention. What function this instability might serve has remained poorly understood. Here we show that (1) a memory must be unstable for learning to transfer to another memory task and (2) the information transferred is of the high-level or abstract properties of a memory task. We find that transfer from a memory task is correlated with its instability and that transfer is prevented when a memory is stabilized. Thus, an unstable memory is in privileged state: only when unstable can a memory communicate with and transfer knowledge to affect the acquisition of a subsequent memory. It is the relationship between elements, rather than knowledge of the individual elements themselves (i.e., words versus actions), that is transferred. These findings suggest that the knowledge transferred is high level or abstract, which allows learning to be transferred between different types of memory tasks (i.e., declarative versus motor memory tasks). Our work shows that an unstable memory is a key component of the mechanism for learning transfer. An unstable memory prevents learning from being rigidly linked to one task; instead, it allows learning to be applied flexibly. Learning has been shown before to transfer from one task to another, from one hand to another (i.e., intermanual transfer), and from eye to hand (i.e., oculomanual transfer; [11Cohen D.A. Pascual-Leone A. Press D.Z. Robertson E.M. Off-line learning of motor skill memory: a double dissociation of goal and movement.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2005; 102: 18237-18241Crossref PubMed Scopus (203) Google Scholar, 16Bapi R.S. Doya K. Harner A.M. Evidence for effector independent and dependent representations and their differential time course of acquisition during motor sequence learning.Exp. Brain Res. 2000; 132: 149-162Crossref PubMed Scopus (134) Google Scholar, 17Japikse K.C. Negash S. Howard Jr., J.H. Howard D.V. Intermanual transfer of procedural learning after extended practice of probabilistic sequences.Exp. Brain Res. 2003; 148: 38-49Crossref PubMed Scopus (54) Google Scholar, 18Verwey W.B. Wright D.L. Effector-independent and effector-dependent learning in the discrete sequence production task.Psychol. Res. 2004; 68: 64-70Crossref PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar, 19Verwey W.B. Clegg B.A. Effector dependent sequence learning in the serial RT task.Psychol. Res. 2005; 69: 242-251Crossref PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar, 20Perez M.A. Wise S.P. Willingham D.T. Cohen L.G. Neurophysiological mechanisms involved in transfer of procedural knowledge.J. Neurosci. 2007; 27: 1045-1053Crossref PubMed Scopus (125) Google Scholar, 21Perez M.A. Tanaka S. Wise S.P. Sadato N. Tanabe H.C. Willingham D.T. Cohen L.G. Neural substrates of intermanual transfer of a newly acquired motor skill.Curr. Biol. 2007; 17: 1896-1902Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (106) Google Scholar]). Yet, these examples of transfer all occur within the same type of memory task. By contrast, here we show that transfer also occurs between different types of memory tasks. The transfer of learning between the word list and motor skill memory task only occurred when they shared a common sequential structure. Consistent with the importance of the sequence structure, we found that it was specifically the sequential aspect of the tasks that were transferred. For example, the recall of words in the correct sequential order was transferred between tasks, whereas total recall was not. Thus, during learning, it is not just the specific words or actions that are encoded, but also their relationship with the other elements within the sequence. Our work establishes a mechanism that makes it possible for learning to transfer between very different types of memory tasks. Specifically, using the shared high-level properties of the relationship among elements makes transfer possible even when those elements are very different (i.e., words versus actions). A memory must be unstable for learning to be transferred to a subsequent memory task. We found a correlation between the susceptibility of a memory to interference, a measure of its instability, and the learning transferred to the other memory task (Figures 2B and 3B). Complementing these findings, we found that preventing a memory from being susceptible to interference also prevented the transfer of learning to the subsequent memory task. The techniques we used to prevent interference differed in many ways; however, they both prevented interference, and they both prevented learning transfer (see “Interference between the memory tasks” in the Supplemental Experimental Procedures). Thus, converging lines of evidence demonstrate that a memory must be unstable for learning to be transferred to the subsequent memory task. Unstable memories are susceptible to interference, which can impair their subsequent retention; yet, instability also gives memories an opportunity to interact and communicate with other memories, leading to learning transfer. We show transfer from an initial unstable memory to a subsequent memory task. We also envisage, at least in principle, retrograde transfer occurring from that subsequent memory task to the initial memory task. Yet, substantial learning has already occurred in the initial memory task, and so any benefit from transfer is likely to be negligible. Overall, learning transfer may come at the cost of memory instability, although the expression of that transfer can be affected by other factors such as prior learning. Instability may allow the interaction, and subsequent transfer of many aspects of a memory, from the high-level features, which we have focused on here, to potentially the low-level features (i.e., specific items). The transfer of low-level features, such as a shared sequence of movements, occurs immediately after an initial memory has been acquired, when it is likely to still be unstable [11Cohen D.A. Pascual-Leone A. Press D.Z. Robertson E.M. Off-line learning of motor skill memory: a double dissociation of goal and movement.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2005; 102: 18237-18241Crossref PubMed Scopus (203) Google Scholar, 16Bapi R.S. Doya K. Harner A.M. Evidence for effector independent and dependent representations and their differential time course of acquisition during motor sequence learning.Exp. Brain Res. 2000; 132: 149-162Crossref PubMed Scopus (134) Google Scholar, 17Japikse K.C. Negash S. Howard Jr., J.H. Howard D.V. Intermanual transfer of procedural learning after extended practice of probabilistic sequences.Exp. Brain Res. 2003; 148: 38-49Crossref PubMed Scopus (54) Google Scholar, 18Verwey W.B. Wright D.L. Effector-independent and effector-dependent learning in the discrete sequence production task.Psychol. Res. 2004; 68: 64-70Crossref PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar, 19Verwey W.B. Clegg B.A. Effector dependent sequence learning in the serial RT task.Psychol. Res. 2005; 69: 242-251Crossref PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar, 20Perez M.A. Wise S.P. Willingham D.T. Cohen L.G. Neurophysiological mechanisms involved in transfer of procedural knowledge.J. Neurosci. 2007; 27: 1045-1053Crossref PubMed Scopus (125) Google Scholar, 21Perez M.A. Tanaka S. Wise S.P. Sadato N. Tanabe H.C. Willingham D.T. Cohen L.G. Neural substrates of intermanual transfer of a newly acquired motor skill.Curr. Biol. 2007; 17: 1896-1902Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (106) Google Scholar]. Yet, when a memory is stabilized, through consolidation, the subsequent transfer is substantially reduced [22Stockinger C. Thürer B. Focke A. Stein T. Intermanual transfer characteristics of dynamic learning: direction, coordinate frame, and consolidation of interlimb generalization.J. Neurophysiol. 2015; 00727: 2015Google Scholar]. Thus, instability is important not only for high-level, but also probably for the transfer of low-level information. Instability provides a window of opportunity for communication between memories, leading to the construction of a high-level or abstract memory representation, which allows the transfer of knowledge between memory tasks. A link between memory instability and the creation of high-level representation could explain the similarity in the brain areas critical to memory instability and the creation of memory schema (i.e., a framework of knowledge that contains the features common across different learning episodes or tasks; [5Cohen D.A. Robertson E.M. Preventing interference between different memory tasks.Nat. Neurosci. 2011; 14: 953-955Crossref PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar, 23Costanzi M. Saraulli D. Rossi-Arnaud C. Aceti M. Cestari V. Memory impairment induced by an interfering task is reverted by pre-frontal cortex lesions: a possible role for an inhibitory process in memory suppression in mice.Neuroscience. 2009; 158: 503-513Crossref PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar, 24Tse D. Langston R.F. Kakeyama M. Bethus I. Spooner P.A. Wood E.R. Witter M.P. Morris R.G. Schemas and memory consolidation.Science. 2007; 316: 76-82Crossref PubMed Scopus (789) Google Scholar, 25Tse D. Takeuchi T. Kakeyama M. Kajii Y. Okuno H. Tohyama C. Bito H. Morris R.G. Schema-dependent gene activation and memory encoding in neocortex.Science. 2011; 333: 891-895Crossref PubMed Scopus (388) Google Scholar]). The representation is not of the individual elements or content of the memory (i.e., the words versus actions); instead, it is of the abstract relationship between the elements. Knowledge is not constrained within independent systems. Instead, knowledge can be organized in the human brain at a higher, more abstract level than has previously been suspected, which allows the transfer of learning between memories for words and actions. The transfer of learning across diverse tasks is due to a high-level representation that can only be formed when a memory is unstable. In sum, we have identified an important functional contribution of memory instability, provided insight into the mechanism of learning transfer, and given a novel perspective on memory organization." @default.
• W2208529056 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2208529056 creator A5009647923 @default.
• W2208529056 creator A5087602792 @default.
• W2208529056 date "2016-01-01" @default.
• W2208529056 modified "2023-10-09" @default.
• W2208529056 title "Unstable Memories Create a High-Level Representation that Enables Learning Transfer" @default.
• W2208529056 cites W1606916117 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W1969833187 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W1973490159 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W1976212031 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2005121348 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2014636973 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2028263944 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2050141916 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2053646390 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2060755194 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2067765425 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2068110335 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2079966829 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2087089005 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2088611336 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2101028535 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2114339641 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2118245962 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2122298493 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2142533684 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2143453552 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2145092284 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2151632193 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2154333325 @default.
• W2208529056 cites W2193914414 @default.
• W2208529056 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.11.035" @default.
• W2208529056 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/5817890" @default.
• W2208529056 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26711493" @default.
• W2208529056 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2208529056 type Work @default.
• W2208529056 sameAs 2208529056 @default.
• W2208529056 citedByCount "32" @default.
• W2208529056 countsByYear W22085290562016 @default.
• W2208529056 countsByYear W22085290562017 @default.
• W2208529056 countsByYear W22085290562018 @default.
• W2208529056 countsByYear W22085290562019 @default.
• W2208529056 countsByYear W22085290562020 @default.
• W2208529056 countsByYear W22085290562021 @default.
• W2208529056 countsByYear W22085290562022 @default.
• W2208529056 countsByYear W22085290562023 @default.
• W2208529056 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2208529056 hasAuthorship W2208529056A5009647923 @default.
• W2208529056 hasAuthorship W2208529056A5087602792 @default.
• W2208529056 hasBestOaLocation W22085290561 @default.
• W2208529056 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2208529056 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2208529056 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2208529056 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2208529056 hasConcept C2776359362 @default.
• W2208529056 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2208529056 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2208529056 hasConceptScore W2208529056C15744967 @default.
• W2208529056 hasConceptScore W2208529056C17744445 @default.
• W2208529056 hasConceptScore W2208529056C188147891 @default.
• W2208529056 hasConceptScore W2208529056C199539241 @default.
• W2208529056 hasConceptScore W2208529056C2776359362 @default.
• W2208529056 hasConceptScore W2208529056C86803240 @default.
• W2208529056 hasConceptScore W2208529056C94625758 @default.
• W2208529056 hasFunder F4320332161 @default.
• W2208529056 hasFunder F4320337405 @default.
• W2208529056 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2208529056 hasLocation W22085290561 @default.
• W2208529056 hasLocation W22085290562 @default.
• W2208529056 hasLocation W22085290563 @default.
• W2208529056 hasLocation W22085290564 @default.
• W2208529056 hasOpenAccess W2208529056 @default.
• W2208529056 hasPrimaryLocation W22085290561 @default.
• W2208529056 hasRelatedWork W1573965422 @default.
• W2208529056 hasRelatedWork W2003971261 @default.
• W2208529056 hasRelatedWork W2010457260 @default.
• W2208529056 hasRelatedWork W2056636631 @default.
• W2208529056 hasRelatedWork W2073085828 @default.
• W2208529056 hasRelatedWork W2144722274 @default.
• W2208529056 hasRelatedWork W2682853549 @default.
• W2208529056 hasRelatedWork W2996669848 @default.
• W2208529056 hasRelatedWork W3170143724 @default.
• W2208529056 hasRelatedWork W4297359407 @default.
• W2208529056 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W2208529056 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2208529056 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2208529056 magId "2208529056" @default.
• W2208529056 workType "article" @default.