Miller Ralph R, Matzel Louis D
Department of Psychology, SUNY-Binghamton, Binghamton, New York 13902-6000, USA.
Learn Mem. 2006 Sep-Oct;13(5):491-7. doi: 10.1101/lm.241006.
For at least 40 years, there has been a recurring argument concerning the nature of experimental amnesia, with one side arguing that amnesic treatments interfere with the formation of enduring memories and the other side arguing that these treatments interfere with the expression of memories that were effectively encoded. The argument appears to stem from a combination of (1) unclear definitions and (2) real differences in the theoretical vantages that underlie the interpretation of relevant data. Here we speak to how the field might avoid arguments that are definitional in nature and how various hypotheses fare in light of published data. Existing but often overlooked data favor very rapid (milliseconds) synaptic consolidation, with experimental amnesia reflecting, at least in part, deficits in retrieval rather than in the initial storage of information.
至少40年来，关于实验性失忆症的本质一直存在反复的争论，一方认为失忆症治疗会干扰持久记忆的形成，另一方则认为这些治疗会干扰有效编码的记忆的表达。这种争论似乎源于以下两个因素的结合：（1）定义不明确；（2）解释相关数据所依据的理论观点存在实际差异。在这里，我们探讨该领域如何避免本质上属于定义性的争论，以及各种假设根据已发表的数据表现如何。现有的但常被忽视的数据支持非常快速（毫秒级）的突触巩固，实验性失忆症至少部分反映了检索缺陷，而非信息的初始存储缺陷。
