Zeleznikow-Johnston Ariel, Kendziorra Emil F, McKenzie Andrew T
School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
European Biostasis Foundation, Riehen, Canton of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland.
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 24;20(6):e0326920. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0326920. eCollection 2025.
Despite the last decade's development of optogenetic methods for artificially manipulating engrams, and subsequent claims that there is a consensus that memories are stored in ensembles of synaptic connections, it remains unclear to what degree there truly is unanimity within the neuroscientific community about the neurophysiological basis of long-term memory. We surveyed 312 neuroscientists, comprising one cohort of experts on engram research and another of general neuroscientists, to assess this community's views on how memories are stored. While 70.5% of participants agreed that long-term memories are primarily maintained by neuronal connectivity patterns and synaptic strengths, there was no clear consensus on which specific neurophysiological features or scales are critical for memory storage. Despite this, the median probability estimate that any long-term memories could potentially be extracted from a static snapshot of brain structure was around 40%, which was also the estimate for whether a successful whole brain emulation could theoretically be created from the structure of a preserved brain. When predicting the future feasibility of whole brain emulation, the median participant estimated this would be achieved for C. elegans around 2045, mice around 2065, and humans around 2125. Notably, neither research background nor expertise level significantly influenced views on whether memories could be extracted from brain structure alone. Our findings suggest that while most neuroscientists believe memories are stored in structural features of the brain, fundamental questions about the precise physical basis of memory storage remain unresolved. These findings have important implications for both theoretical neuroscience and the development of technologies aimed at preserving or extracting memory-related information.
尽管在过去十年中开发了用于人工操纵记忆印记的光遗传学方法,并且随后有人声称大家已达成共识,即记忆存储在突触连接的集合中,但目前仍不清楚神经科学界在长期记忆的神经生理基础方面真正达成一致的程度。我们调查了312名神经科学家,其中一组是记忆印记研究专家,另一组是普通神经科学家,以评估该群体对记忆存储方式的看法。虽然70.5%的参与者同意长期记忆主要由神经元连接模式和突触强度维持,但对于哪些特定的神经生理特征或尺度对记忆存储至关重要,并没有明确的共识。尽管如此,对于是否可以从大脑结构的静态快照中潜在提取任何长期记忆的概率估计中位数约为40%,这也是关于理论上是否可以从保存的大脑结构创建成功的全脑模拟的估计值。在预测全脑模拟的未来可行性时,参与者估计秀丽隐杆线虫约在2045年、小鼠约在2065年、人类约在2125年可以实现。值得注意的是,研究背景和专业水平均未显著影响关于是否可以仅从大脑结构中提取记忆的观点。我们的研究结果表明,虽然大多数神经科学家认为记忆存储在大脑的结构特征中,但关于记忆存储的确切物理基础的基本问题仍未得到解决。这些发现对理论神经科学以及旨在保存或提取与记忆相关信息的技术发展都具有重要意义。