Evidence for the standard model, multiple trace theory, or the unified theory?

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
J. D. Runyan, Nathan W Brooks
{"title":"Evidence for the standard model, multiple trace theory, or the unified theory?","authors":"J. D. Runyan, Nathan W Brooks","doi":"10.1080/17588928.2022.2076663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There have been two dominating theories for memory consolidation: the standard model (SM) and multiple trace theory (MTT). Whereas lesion studies have largely indicated a waning role for the hippocampus in memory consolidation, and thus have supported SM, findings from neuroimaging studies have produced varying results. Tallman et al. (this issue) argue that this variability may result from confounding factors and that, once these factors are accounted for, their neuroimaging results support SM. They do not, however, consider a third option: the unified theory. Here, we suggest that their findings, along with neurobiochemical and engram cell studies, may better fit this third theory.","PeriodicalId":10413,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Neuroscience","volume":"13 1","pages":"151 - 153"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2022.2076663","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT There have been two dominating theories for memory consolidation: the standard model (SM) and multiple trace theory (MTT). Whereas lesion studies have largely indicated a waning role for the hippocampus in memory consolidation, and thus have supported SM, findings from neuroimaging studies have produced varying results. Tallman et al. (this issue) argue that this variability may result from confounding factors and that, once these factors are accounted for, their neuroimaging results support SM. They do not, however, consider a third option: the unified theory. Here, we suggest that their findings, along with neurobiochemical and engram cell studies, may better fit this third theory.
标准模型、多痕迹理论还是统一理论的证据?
记忆巩固有两种主流理论:标准模型(SM)和多痕迹理论(MTT)。尽管病变研究在很大程度上表明海马体在记忆巩固中的作用减弱,因此支持SM,但神经影像学研究的结果却各不相同。Tallman等人(本期)认为,这种可变性可能是由混杂因素造成的,一旦考虑到这些因素,他们的神经成像结果就支持SM。然而,他们没有考虑第三种选择:统一理论。在这里,我们认为他们的发现,以及神经生化和植入细胞的研究,可能更符合第三种理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Neuroscience
Cognitive Neuroscience NEUROSCIENCES-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive Neuroscience publishes high quality discussion papers and empirical papers on any topic in the field of cognitive neuroscience including perception, attention, memory, language, action, social cognition, and executive function. The journal covers findings based on a variety of techniques such as fMRI, ERPs, MEG, TMS, and focal lesion studies. Contributions that employ or discuss multiple techniques to shed light on the spatial-temporal brain mechanisms underlying a cognitive process are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信