Back

Greater neural pattern dissimilarity in retrieval stage of spaced learning is associated with higher meaningfulness and better memory

Yaowen, L.

2021-09-07 neuroscience
10.1101/2021.09.06.459209 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The question of whether repeated studies bring more variability or less to our brain is a critical problem before scientist continue their further study about memory. In the past ten years, a series of neural pattern representation studies have found that under the condition of spaced learning, the neural pattern similarity(NPS) between two encoding stages increases, and the researchers claimed that these results support the idea that repeated studies bring more similarity along with repetition in our brain, which is conflicted with the encoding variability theory(Feng et al., 2019; Y. Lu et al., 2015; Xue et al., 2010, 2011a). However, we doubt this viewpoint because we think the difference between encoding processing cannot be used to represent the difference between memory states. In current experiments, we used a new experimental paradigm with a longer lag and elaboration learning task to test the encoding variability theory. By comparing the difference between neural pattern dissimilarity(NPDS1)(spaced learning - one-time learning) and NPDS2(massed learning - one-time learning) in the final test (retrieval) stage, we get the result that the NPDS1 was significantly greater than NPDS2 in the parietal lobe of 400ms and the right frontal lobe of 600ms, which is more fitting to the encoding variability mechanism. However, we believe that there is no contradiction between these two experimental evidences. On the contrary, we think they reflect different aspects of the process of spaced learning. We propose that the deficient processing in encoding stage exactly lead to less encoding variability in our memory. More importantly, this result gives us reason to double the paper published ten years ago in Science, which claimed repetition brings greater neural pattern similarity.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cerebral Cortex
357 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.3%
2
Neural Networks
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.4%
3
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 8%
8.6%
4
Progress in Neurobiology
41 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
5
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.4%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 33%
3.8%
7
Brain Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
8
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.1%
9
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
10
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
50% of probability mass above
11
Neuroscience Bulletin
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
12
Neuroscience Research
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
13
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.8%
14
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
15
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
Neuroscience
88 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.5%
18
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.4%
19
Science China Life Sciences
26 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
20
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 18%
1.4%
21
Frontiers in Psychology
49 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
22
Neuropsychologia
77 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
23
Molecular Brain
26 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
24
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
25
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
26
Frontiers in Neural Circuits
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
27
Cognitive Neurodynamics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
28
Bioengineering
24 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
29
Schizophrenia Research
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
30
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 26%
0.9%