Memory Interference During Retrieval - Essay Example

Memory Interference during Retrieval In recent experiments, connections have been found between the hippocampus and the loss of memory especially in reference to retrieval. This is due to the interference of the hippocampus with mnemonic processes in non-hippocampus systems (Sparks, Lehmann and Sutherland 780). This can be seen with the relation found between damage to the hippocampus and the effect that follows in the loss of memory. The article Between-systems memory interference during retrieval highlights the relationship between amnesia and the hippocampus concerning the prevention of non-hippocampus systems from acquiring and maintaining independent memory that is meant to support the performance of tasks. Considering the argument brought forth by then article on then relationship between the hippocampus and the acquisition of independent memories, which do not rely on the hippocampus systems. It further questions the interference of the hippocampus with the retrieval of perfectly normal hippocampus dependent memory, which has been established in non-hippocampus systems. The authors go further to make working assumptions relating to disruption of memory that is not stored in hippocampus systems during the resumption of functionality by the hippocampus. This is backed with evidence from experiments on the temporary inhibition of the hippocampus, and the resulting inconclusive results on the outcome. The main aim of the article because of the experiments conducted is revealed that the loss of memory is affiliated failure in the establishment of a lasting fear memory. In order to prove its findings in relation to loss of memory and the hippocampus; the results of experiments conducted on animals are included and the inferences revealed. As a result, it is found that inactivation or loss of functionality of the hippocampus does not result in loss of memory, retrograde amnesia, the same way that the hippocampus can interfere with retrieval of memory. In order to arrive at their conclusions, the authors of the article conducted an experiment, and based it on what is already known to cause amnesia or failure in the retrieval of memory. As such, the sponsoring institution, University of Lethbridge, approved their experiment. The approval means that the experiment was done according to set guidelines in order to acquire accurate results for their hypothesis. With this in mind, the sample of animals used in the experiment involved the use of rats that were housed in a standard laboratory and facing all similar treatment and conditions. However, in the entire experiment, there was a discrepancy in the research, where part of the said sample received a variance of the drugs used, and where they were infused with either sterile physiological saline or muscimol. However, the two infusion substances were done at a similar and constant rate for all the groups involved, after then transportation of the animals from the laboratory to the infusion room. This could have had an impact on the outcome that was observed at the end of the experiment because the article does not mention any form of difference between the two substances and their intended impact on the sample. In addition, the animal used in the experiment was subjected to further treatments on conditioning of their behavior followed by retention tests for all the animals in separate incidences but similar circumstances. This is to mean that the experiment had a form of balance in the monitoring of the outcome so as to attain accurate results free of bias and with similar assessment modes (FreezeFrame Video-Based Conditioned Fear System and analyzed by Actimetrics Software) for the retention set to ensure no discrepancy was found (Sparks, Lehmann and Sutherland 782). In spite of all the measures taken to ensure that the results obtained are accurate, the article does not mention a control sample or population that was used in the experiment. This is to mean that, it cannot be determined for sure that retrograde amnesia was caused by the presence hippocampus damage and not other factors. As such, confounding is seen to be part of the experiment due to lack of certainty and failure to consider some other importance factors with the animals, such as individual differences and instead focusing on hippocampus damage. However, the accuracy of the entire experiment cannot be questioned as it brings out the facts quite well based on the findings and not on the research of other parties, meaning that the information resented should be precise as per the design. In spite of the earlier analysis of the experiment based on the use of muscimol, the muscimol plays a role in the experiment by showing that hippocampus can interfere with memory retrieval. This is following the result that the sample infused with muscimol received interference from the hippocampus during the time of learning to create evidence of interference by the hippocampus in memory retrieval. This is because of an inactive hippocampus during the time of retention training (Sparks, Lehmann and Sutherland 783). The above increases the accuracy of the research and the authoritarian approach used in the delivery of the content. In relation to the authority level applied in the delivery of the content, the quality is brought as being so high that, the only downside to the article’s quality is the issue of confounding that was mentioned earlier. This is because of confounding due to then looking of different factors that include the use of needles and the angle of insertion into the animals’ brains. In addition, the duration is quoted at 3.5 minutes before it was removed from the hippocampus, meaning that it was the average time for which the needles were left infused for maximum diffusion. Other than the above, the accuracy of the research cannot be in question for other reasons. This acts as an authoritarian factor in presentation and provides a solid argument for the facts they attempt to prove through the experiment. Because of the above, the findings are highly convincing as to why memory retrieval fails in some cases following the inactivity or damage to the hippocampus. This is to mean that any form of harm that is inflicted on the hippocampus is bound to affect the learning process, and also the retention time, as well as the effectiveness of the memory. The findings are further explained in a means that any nonprofessional can comprehend, provided they have a little background information on memory and its various structures. This makes their claims even more believable because the backing by statistical evidence is stronger than just making a claim and leaving it to the audience to discern its meaning and information to support or dispute it. In conclusion, the research article “Between-systems memory interference during retrieval” puts across it findings in a noble manner to which can easily relate. In addition, the research article is backed by facts, making it authoritative while the consideration that the authors conducted the experiment makes it even more credible. Work Cited Sparks, F. T., Lehmann, H., and Sutherland, R. J. Between-systems memory interference during retrieval. European Journal Of Neuroscience, 34(5). 2011. 780-786. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07796.x Read More