Contextual Inference Drives Motor Memory Protection and Disruption

Newly acquired memories are initially fragile and are consolidated into long-term memory over time. Although consolidated memories were once thought to be resistant to interference, accumulating evidence shows that memory reactivation renders them transiently labile, making them susceptible to modification or interference before reconsolidation. Crucially, however, there is substantial variation in whether reactivated memories are disrupted by new information, remain protected from it, or even strengthened by it. The factors that guide this modification are largely unknown. To systematically investigate this, we examined motor memory interference using a classic A-B-A visuomotor rotation paradigm. Participants adapted to a 30-degree clockwise rotation (A) on Day1. On Day2, an interfering 30-degree counter-clockwise rotation (B) was introduced under varied conditions: directly without reactivation, after brief reactivation of A, after expression of A without feedback, or following a gradual transition from A to B. The final experiment used explicit contextual cues (a secondary follow-through target) to distinguish A and B trials. Contrary to the simple prediction that reactivation should increase vulnerability to interference, reactivating the original memory before introducing interference protected it, as evidenced by significant savings during relearning on Day3. In contrast, introducing interference directly, without reactivation, disrupted the original memory. This protection was consistent with a contextual-inference account: the large sensory prediction error experienced during the abrupt transition from A to B served as a latent contextual cue, signaling a new context and thereby shielding the original memory from being overwritten. Eliminating this prediction error through an immediate washout session with a similar error profile or through a gradual A-to-B transition abolished the protective effect and disrupted the original memory. Furthermore, when explicit contextual cues distinguished the two perturbations, memories were protected even in the absence of a salient prediction error. Our findings are consistent with a contextual inference account in which the fate of a consolidated memory, whether it is modified or protected, is shaped by the availability of explicit cues or latent signals such as sensory prediction error at the time when interference is introduced.