Another thought

Perhaps it is that memories that are more attached to emotions consolidate and/or reconsolidate differently than motor/procedural memories?

Time and Consolidation

Suzanne Ardanowski

3-4-08

Feeling Brain

 

            I am writing my research paper on memory, which I was just working on all day. I need some sleep so that my learned memories can fully consolidate and enhance! To pull off of some ideas in my paper and in the reading, I am thinking more about consolidation and reconsolidation. McGaugh says that consolidation is evolutionary and occurs over time. The issue of how much time seems to be dependent on what type of memory is being consolidated. In some of the amnesia cases, (McGaugh) a woman lost recollection of her second language following a stroke, HM lost a few years before his surgery, people lost remembrances of changes done to their house prior to a brain injury. Is it the type of memory that takes longer to consolidate and this is why it is lost or is it the way in which the brain is damaged, or both?  Are certain memories thought to now take years to truly fully consolidate or does it just appear that way but in fact they are lost because of the way the damage occurred and not necessarily because they were not consolidated? I think it is interesting how evolution, nature, God, universe-whatever the case may be-seems to have the implicit procedural/motor skills as more resilient to amnesia than episodic, explicit memories.  Is this a fair observation?  I also like the associative memory network for fear on page 213 in Ledoux. I think you can even expand on this by adding a whole unconscious level as well.

Time and Consolidation

emotional memory

Endira Ferrara

The most interesting discussion in the readings for this week I found to be the investigation behind why we tend to remember emotionally arousing experiences more accurately than those experiences considered to be neutral.  The researchers behind the experiment conducted in the article "Remembering one year later" conclude that recognition is greater for the emotional (both pleasurable and displeasurable) pictures shown to the participants.  As a result, they reveal that the amygdala is more engaged during the retrieval of events during which emotion is aroused.

While some might say that the memory system is developed to retain the events of relevance to the survival of the human being, it is clear in any case that events producing extreme emotion are more easily remembered.  Does this mean, therefore, that they are more easily consolidated, or more easily triggered in the process of recollection?  The researchers of the study conclude that emotion enhances recollection, due to the fact that in the process of recollection, one undergoes a form of re-experience of the situation, and therefore assists in the memory of context and the details of situations.  Additionally, in the process of retrieving the memory, one may experience similar feelings to those experienced during the actual event.

The discussion between recollection and familiarity in this article also provided an interesting distinction between the memory of an event accompanied by contextual information (time, location, sensation, etc.) and merely the feeling that the event happened in the past, without the ability to contextualize it.  We've discussed the importance of context specifically in the expression of emotion, and it is interesting to see the correlation between the necessity of context for the sake of not only expression but also memory storage.  Without the ability to recall the entire situation of an experience, it becomes impossible to place within the autobiographical timeline of one's life.

I enjoyed the chapters in "Emotion and Memory" because I was able to see how the study of emotion and memory in a sense parallel one another.  Even though two distinct forms of memory have been termed - short-term and long-term - it is clear that a number of systems in the brain are involved in the creation and expression of memory, just as is emotion.  The distinction exists between memories established on the basis of condition, for example skills learned through continuous practice and repetition that often out necessity become habit, and those traumatic, highly aroused experiences that often take years to consolidate.  They both reflect different forms, I believe of long-term memory.  One requires the notion of repetition as an imperative process towards the consolidation of the experience so that it becomes conditional, and the other may be one single event of particular significance that gave rise to an extreme emotional response.  McGaugh says that our response to each and ever new event depends upon what we expect or predict our response to be, based almost entirely on our memories of past events.  In this sense, much of our emotional response to situations results from individual experience in the world.  Does this mean, therefore, that much of the process of memory storage and consolidation is specific to the individual?  It may be that the way in which we organize experience - that is, in terms of a past, present, and future - is common to us all, but our response to new experiences is dependent upon past experience, which is in essence not the exact experience itself, but the way in which we remember it.

In these two readings specifically, I couldn't help but think of Freud and his discussion of recollection and repetition.  In his first chapter, McGaugh alludes to the notion of repetition as an imperative process towards the consolidation of experience.  At the same time, Freud advocated repetition for the sake of remembering and making sense of past experience, and thus bringing what lies in the unconscious to the realm of consciousness.  The idea that traumatic experience is only brought fully into the conscious (and is contexualized as an event in the timeline of one's life) through a repetition of that experience, or in other words, is only overcome through the re-experiencing of the emotional arousal accompanying the situation, is interesting to examine in light of the fact that we tend to remember the events that were the cause of an enhanced emotion.  Particularly in terms of the 'flashbulb' memories, or the most traumatic experiences, it is true that at times these are the memories that are suppressed rather than remembered.  In this case, only the feeling and experience is remembered, but not the situation and context.  It may be that what is constant in one's memory of an event is the emotion; after significant amount of time has passed, the emotions of the experience remain; even if the context is not remembered, the feeling that such an event happened remains, and if the context is remembered, the feeling accompanies it.  The fact that one is able to access a large amount of contextual detail of a situation through a re-experience of the particular emotion felt in that situation may support this idea.

Reaction, Memory : Personality, Emotion

Molly Esp
Biology/Psychology: The Feeling Brain
2 March 2008



This week's readings shared a similar theme with last week in the reiteration that memories are inextricably tied to emotion. This idea is proven through the two case studies in which individuals are shown images as their brain activity is monitored, looking to find a concentration of activity in certain areas, in the hopes of revealing emotional or cognitive thought.

Reminding me of last week's discussion of various forms of amnesia, McGaugh explains that memory is "without doubt, our most important possession, our most critical capacity. We are, after all, our memories. It is our memory that enables us to value everything else we possess. Lacking memory, we would have no ability to be concerned about our hearts, hair, lungs, libido, loved ones, enemies, achievements, falures, incomes or income taxes. Our memory provides us with an autobiographical record and enables us to understand and react appropriately to changing experiences" (2). I found this point to be very relevant to the reoccuring theme of defining emotion and determining what is or is not an emotion. From this, it can be concluded that emotion is a reaction influenced by one's memory. Without his or her "autobiographical record," one would assumably react differently to certain stimuli. However, can it be said that one would in turn exhibit a different emotion or degree of emotion? Does studying amnesia allow us to answer this question?

As for the biological aspects of the readings, I find LeDoux's method of explanation to be the easiest to understand and digest, perhaps because there is often a visual to accompany the words. Page 164's figure 6-13 clarified the process in a way that the language of the other readings made confusing. The diagrams on page 190 (figure 7.2) also worked to make the biology less abstract by illuminating the locations of the amygdala and hippocampus. For me, it is very difficult to understand these very real aspects of human biology without an image. Maybe this need for pictoral support in order to understand and internalize further supports memory and the power of images?

Emotional Memory

Amy Fleischer
Blog: Emotional Memory
March 2, 2008

It seems like an important rule for this week’s readings is that change is the only constant. While emphasizing the integrative functions of different types of memory, we’ve learned about how we reconstruct our memories of the past by recalling them in the present. By use of our imaginations, we are constantly making our worlds through a complex interplay of memory and emotion. Since there are so many ways in which we re-make or create via memory, a thorough investigation the variety of processes is in order.

Part of our readings reviewed material we discussed in class last week. I found the repetition to be helpful, so what follows is another attempt to summarize:

In Memory and Emotion, McGaugh distinguishes between short-term (working) memory and long-term (lasting) memory. The former contains our most recent experiences, while the latter involves explicit recall of specific events (episodic) or factual knowledge (semantic) (10). He goes on to explain that there are, in fact, many different forms of memory as a result of integrated functioning between the hippocampus, caudate nucleus, and amygdala (28 fig3).

One of McGaugh’s softer points on the function of emotion regards how we use it to make meaning (2). Continuing last week’s discussion of narrative, the study of memory is important to scientists as well as historians for obvious reasons. A major debate existing in the field of oral history, in particular, is how much “honesty” counts when an altered memory could speak more for the truth. That is, with greater attention to context, narrated events may tell more about the meaning of historical events (be they individual/autobiographical or public) than would dry recollections of facts. The creative components of memory lend artistic impulses to research methods in history and science, as well as many other disciplines.

Of course, McGaugh and LeDoux and many others still insist on the value of objective analysis in the study of memory (McGaugh 7); but if researchers are too adamant about achieving objectivity, they may miss out on some important points. McGaugh’s critique of Pavlov’s experiments as being flat-out wrong was surprising to me… although his study was extremely important to behavioral studies, his inferences about conditioning as mere habit formation is misleading. In reading LeDoux as well, I was interested to learn about the historical abhorrence to psychological explanations of animal behavior (147). Hopefully, this denial of subjective emotional states in animals is now being checked. (Do you think that it is in the studies we have reviewed?)

I got kind of lost, in Chapter 7 of The Emotional Brain, where LeDoux describes the relationship between the hippocampus and the amygdala. I understand that explicit memories of emotional experiences (which are declarative or conscious) occur via the hippocampus and implicit emotional memories (which are procedural or skill-based) occur via the amygdala- but there still must be connections among them (181). Could it be that memories are all made of the same “stuff” but that this “stuff” functions differently in different regions of the brain? Depending also on various experiences?

By trying to remember an event with respect to time, it might be easier to compare how the two additional studies that we read examine the role of emotional memory. The Sharot, et al. article refers to earlier stages of memory formation in order to learn how memories are made, while Dolcos et al. looks more to the current situation in order to examine how memories are re-constituted over time. In both studies, mapping the consolidation of memory can provide valuable insights into the learning process.

Meanwhile, several of our readings referred to the experience of “memory without remembering” (McGaugh 46). The most classic example is in the case of H.M., but who among us can attest to a type of deja-vu experience, wherein something triggers the sense that we are re-experiencing a past event? Perhaps this is an exaggerated example of the way emotion affects the experience of “remembering”, as opposed to “knowing”, which is the topic of the study by Sharot, Delago and Phelps. (If this connection only makes sense to me, it is likely that I’ve misunderstood the study. Therefore, please help!)

The work of Dolcos, LeBar, and Cabeza places great emphasis on retrieval mechanisms for good reason. In addition to the assigned readings, I recommend listening to the Radio Lab on Memory and Forgetting (June 8, 2007). See the link on our course website and play close attention to the part about LeDoux’s research assistant who discovered that he could intervene in the process of remembering learned behavior (in rats) in order to erase specific, negative memories. (Sound familiar? Remember that movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? It was made a few years after the study!) Consider the implications for treatment of PTSD and other affective disorders… Accordingly, McGaugh reminds us how our ability to forget is also important, even at the level of every-day operations (8).

In the words of Radio Lab’s moderator, do not forget that emotional memory refers to the “physical structure” of brain cells… and so I keep thinking of emotional memory like a kind of cement, which helps to secure blocks of experience- although the structure is always open to remodeling.

Emotional memory is like a muscle that gets stronger when flexed, but might snap if over-extended. Just like muscles (which help to hold our bodies together) emotions act like a kind of glue, or binding agent, at the site of relationships between (or within) people, things, and ideas.


(Since this topic is prone to anecdotes, be glad I spared you the load! So many scattered memories have come flooding back while reading about this topic. Has this also been the case for you?)

The Scent of Bitter Almonds

Oliver Edwards

The Scent of Bitter Almonds

 

            We are all familiar with the phenomenon of a seemingly neutral stimulus becoming a catalyst for strong, vivid emotional memory. Our sensory modalities, especially the olfactory, have a remarkable ability to construct emotional cues for our long-term memory using all the sensory information that becomes associated with an emotional event. The McGaugh reading, more than any other, has helped me to clarify scientifically some of these ideas in a way that had previously only made sense to me in the literary realm.

            In the LeDoux reading we have been geared up for his unfolding expertise on the structure of fear conditioning, and he has just now begun to discuss how fear memories are formed. It seems, however, that we get a clearer picture from the generalized viewpoint taken by McGaugh. He walks us through the origins of emotional neuroscience, emphasizing important points about many of the misconceptions we have and the false starts in the history of neuroscience.

            I was very interested in and surprised at the section on Pavlov. First of all, it is important to note that Pavlov did not want to be considered a psychologist, that he considered the largely introspective field of psychology to be unscientific. He therefore considered himself purely a physiologist. This is ironic considering that he is a household name in psychology. More importantly, McGaugh points out that Pavlov was fundamentally wrong in that he supposed memory to be a direct Stimulus Response habit formation. Perhaps in an overzealous attempt to be more objective and avoid the anthropomorphization of his dogs, he supposed their memories to be, not only mechanistic, but simplistically hard wired to act directly based on stimulus response.

            McGaugh guides us gracefully through the research that has picked this theory apart, proving that animals and humans have mechanisms for forming memories that are more dynamic, and thus determining which brain areas allow us to do this. He then goes on to discuss memory consolidation, illustrating the phenomenon of delay memory formation. This has enormous implications for the understanding of how rich, emotionally potent memories can be associated with varying stimuli. He posits that memory consolidation takes a long time because it could be evolutionarily adaptive to allow a variety of sensory input to influence the memory, and everything surrounding the emotional event must be absorbed into the memory. This may just bring science closer to the mystery of how bitter almonds could make one think of unrequited love.