Skip to main content
. 2019 Jun 26;2:242. doi: 10.1038/s42003-019-0470-y

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Blocking the second memory does not lead to the recovery of the first memory. a Time-line of experiment. Animals received the first training followed by the second training during the 2 h lapse. Sensitizing stimulation were applied 2 h after the second training (4 h after the first training). Animals were then tested for their response to either conditioned stimulus (CS), gamma-nonalactone (GNL) or amyl acetate (AA), at 24 h. b Sensitization was sufficient to block the second memory, whereas no sensitizing stimuli resulted in a strong second memory compared with naïve controls (sensitization: n = 22, no sensitization after second training: n = 24, naïve: n = 30). There was no increased response to gamma-nonalactone beyond naïve levels at 24 h despite the blocking of the second memory. Animals that received the second training without sensitization also did not have a significantly different response to gamma-nonalactone compared to naïve controls (sensitization: n = 22, no sensitization after second training: n = 18, naïve: n = 27). Violin plots show density of data extending from minimum to maximum values. Internal boxplots show median and interquartile range (first and third quartile). Whiskers represent minimum to maximum values. Circles show the mean. c Time-line of injection of anisomycin (ANI) after the second appetitive training. d ANI blocked the consolidation of the second memory, whereas saline injection resulted in a strong second memory (ANI: n = 20, saline: n = 20, naïve: n = 22). ANI after the second training did not recover the first memory when tested at 24 h (ANI: n = 20, saline: n = 20, naïve: n = 20)