Brain prosthetic restores learning capability in rats

September, 2011

Effective patterns of neural activity replayed via an artificial device inserted in the hippocampus restores lost learning capability and even improves learning in normal rats.

In the experiment, rats learned which lever to press to receive water, where the correct lever depended on which lever they had pressed previously (the levers were retractable; there was a variable delay between the first and second presentation of the levers). Microelectrodes in the rats’ brains provided data that enabled researchers to work out the firing patterns of neurons in CA1 that resulted from particular firing patterns in CA3 (previous research had established that long-term memory involves CA3 outputs being received in CA1).

Normal neural communication between these two subregions of the hippocampus was then chemically inhibited. While the rats still remembered the general rule, and still remembered that pressing the levers would gain them water, they could only remember which lever they had pressed for 5-10 seconds.

An artificial hippocampal system that could reproduce effective firing patterns (established in earlier training) was then implanted in the rats’ brains and long-term memory function was restored. Furthermore, when the ‘memory prosthetic’ was implanted in animals whose hippocampus was functioning normally, their memory improved.

The findings open up amazing possibilities for ameliorating brain damage. There is of course the greatly limiting factor that effective memory traces (spatiotemporal firing patterns) need to be recorded for each activity. This will be particularly problematic for individuals with significant damage. Perhaps one day we will all ‘record’ ourselves as a matter of course, in the same way that we might put by blood or genetic material ‘in case’! Still, it’s an exciting development.

The next step will be to repeat these results in monkeys.

Reference: 

Related News

Research into the effects of cannabis on cognition has produced inconsistent results. Much may depend on extent of usage, timing, and perhaps (this is speculation) genetic differences.

In the study, two rhesus monkeys were given a standard human test of

I’ve always felt that better thinking was associated with my brain working ‘in a higher gear’ — literally working at a faster rhythm.

Trying to learn two different things one after another is challenging. Almost always some of the information from the first topic or task gets lost. Why does this happen?

I’ve spoken often about the spacing effect — that it’s better to spread out your learning than have it all massed in a block.

What governs whether or not you’ll retrieve a memory? I’ve talked about the importance of retrieval cues, of the match between the cue and the memory code you’re trying to retrieve, of the strength of the connections leading to the code. But these all have to do with the memory code.

In a recent study, 40 undergraduate students learned ten lists of ten pairs of Swahili-English words, with tests after each set of ten. On these tests, each correct answer was followed by an image, either a neutral one or one designed to arouse negative emotions, or by a blank screen.

Childhood amnesia — our inability to remember almost everything that happened to us when very young — is always interesting. It’s not as simple as an inability to form long-term memories.

As we get older, when we suffer memory problems, we often laughingly talk about our brain being ‘full up’, with no room for more information. A new study suggests that in some sense (but not the direct one!) that’s true.

It’s well-established that feelings of encoding fluency are positively correlated with judgments of learning, so it’s been generally believed that people primarily use the simple rule, easily learned = easily remembered (ELER), to work out whether they’re likely to remember something (as discuss

Pages

Subscribe to Latest newsSubscribe to Latest newsSubscribe to Latest health newsSubscribe to Latest news