No-think, No drink? Assessing the ability of reconsolidation interference by intentional forgetting to suppress alcohol memories in hazardous drinkers.

Citation metadata

Date: May 2022
Publisher: Elsevier Science Publishers
Document Type: Report; Brief article
Length: 294 words

Document controls

Main content

Abstract :

Keywords Reconsolidation; Think/no-think task; Memory suppression; Alcohol; Memory; Addiction Highlights * Short retrieval procedures are optimal to trigger memory reactivation. * Alcohol cues can have a detrimental effect on suppression induced forgetting. * The suppression effect of the think/no-think task does not appear to be enduring. Abstract Memory reconsolidation offers an opportunity to modify previously consolidated memories by first reactivating them. The process is triggered by the presentation of retrieval cues (reminders of the memory to be reactivated). However, reconsolidation is not universally triggered upon retrieval. Here we investigate one boundary condition thought to constrain memory reactivation: retrieval length. We also investigate the effects of a novel post-retrieval manipulation: intentional suppression. We assessed this with the think/no-think (TNT) task, in a clinically relevant sample of hazardous drinkers, using alcohol-related paired associate learning. 73 participants took part in four online sessions. On the first session participants were required to learn 36 image-word pairs. On the second session participants received 0, 4, 18 or 36 retrieval cues followed by the TNT task. The recall of the pairs was assessed 2 and 7 days after the retrieval + TNT procedure. The 4-trial retrieval procedure was the most consistent with triggering memory reconsolidation. This group showed greater practice effects and was the only group in which suppression-induced forgetting was observed at test. However, suppression-induced forgetting of alcohol cues was lower than in normative samples, indicating that intentional forgetting effects may depend upon population, salience of material and time between suppression and retrieval. Author Affiliation: (a) Clinical Psychopharmacology Unit, Research Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK * Corresponding author. Article History: Received 10 June 2021; Revised 25 January 2022; Accepted 4 February 2022 Byline: Louise Simeonov [l.simeonov@ucl.ac.uk] (*), Matthew Peniket, Ravi Das [ravi.das@ucl.ac.uk]

Source Citation

Source Citation   

Gale Document Number: GALE|A699667850