van Schie Kevin, van Veen Suzanne C, van den Hout Marcel A, Engelhard Iris M
Department of Clinical Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2017 May 16;8(sup1):1315291. doi: 10.1080/20008198.2017.1315291. eCollection 2017.
: After reactivation, memories can become unstable and sensitive to modification before they are restored into long-term memory. Using behavioural manipulations, reactivated memories may be disrupted via the mechanism of interference (i.e. novel learning). In a laboratory study, Wichert et al. (2013a) showed that new learning after reactivation changed episodic memory, while new learning alone or reactivation alone did not. Given the potential clinical application of such a procedure in trauma-focused psychological treatments, such as CBT or EMDR, the aim of this study was to replicate Wichert et al. : On Day 1, participants ( = 96) viewed and recalled a series of emotional and non-emotional pictures. Then, participants were randomized to one of four groups. One week later, on Day 8, Group 1 reactivated the previously learned pictures and learned new pictures. To control for specific effects of reactivation or new learning, Group 2 only reactivated the previously learned pictures, and Group 3 only learned new pictures. Group 4 received no reactivation and no new learning. On Day 9, all groups indicated for each picture out of a series whether they had seen it on Day 1. : The data were analysed using Bayesian hypothesis testing, which allows for quantifying the evidence in favour of the alternative and the null hypothesis. In general, results showed that Group 1 recognized fewer pictures from Day 1 compared to Groups 2 and 4 on Day 9. However, the expected difference between new learning following reactivation (i.e. Group 1) and new learning alone (i.e. Group 3) was not substantially supported by the data for any of our dependent measures. : We replicated some of the findings by Wichert et al., but did not find substantial support for the critical difference between new learning following reactivation and new learning alone.
重新激活后，记忆在恢复为长期记忆之前可能会变得不稳定且对修改敏感。通过行为操纵，重新激活的记忆可能会通过干扰机制（即新的学习）被破坏。在一项实验室研究中，维歇特等人（2013年a）表明，重新激活后的新学习改变了情景记忆，而单独的新学习或单独的重新激活则没有。鉴于这种程序在以创伤为重点的心理治疗（如认知行为疗法或眼动脱敏再处理疗法）中的潜在临床应用，本研究的目的是重复维歇特等人的研究：在第1天，参与者（n = 96）观看并回忆了一系列情感和非情感图片。然后，参与者被随机分为四组之一。一周后，在第8天，第1组重新激活之前学习的图片并学习新图片。为了控制重新激活或新学习的特定影响，第2组仅重新激活之前学习的图片，第3组仅学习新图片。第4组既没有重新激活也没有新学习。在第9天，所有组针对一系列图片中的每张图片指出他们是否在第1天见过。
数据使用贝叶斯假设检验进行分析，该检验允许量化支持备择假设和原假设的证据。总体而言，结果表明，与第2组和第4组在第9天相比，第1组在第9天从第1天识别出的图片更少。然而，对于我们的任何一项因变量测量数据，重新激活后新学习（即第1组）和单独新学习（即第3组）之间的预期差异并未得到实质性支持。
我们重复了维歇特等人的一些发现，但没有找到充分证据支持重新激活后新学习与单独新学习之间的关键差异。
