STC associative interactions occur across intervals of hours, extending the temporal contiguity needed for association well beyond the tens of milliseconds typical of Hebbian associativity¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Synaptic tag and capture interactions can bind events occurring hours apart, greatly extending the temporal window for association beyond Hebbian milliseconds-scale contiguity. → Wickliffe C. Abraham 2019

Evidence¶

Wickliffe C. Abraham 2019¶

Wickliffe C. Abraham, Owen D. Jones and David L. Glanzman. (2019). Is plasticity of synapses the mechanism of long-term memory storage? npj Science of Learning 4:9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0048-y

q2 · i? · review · r3

Narrative review statement about STC findings in L-LTP research. The review reports the interactions "can occur across intervals of hours", which the authors suggest may bind events occurring in temporal proximity to strongly stored experiences.

"These STC associative interactions can occur across intervals of hours, 30 which extends the range of temporal contiguity needed for association well beyond the tens of milliseconds typical of Hebbian associativity"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Integrating spatially or temporally separated but related elements of instructional information produces a large average learning benefit for novices — related
• Spatial and temporal contiguity effects do not differ significantly in mean magnitude — related
• The learning benefit of increasing integration is substantially larger for high element interactivity (complex) materials than for low element interactivity materials — related
• Conscious awareness of action onset lags brain activity initiation by hundreds of milliseconds — related
• Contiguity effects show no statistically reliable difference between static and dynamic presentation of visual information — related
• The timing rule of fear conditioning contradicts the Hebbian coincidence rule because simultaneous CS–US pairing is less efficient than CS onset preceding the US with co-termination tens of seconds later — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The Hebbian CS–US convergence model of lateral amygdala plasticity is inconsistent with the timing and brevity of LA CS responses — a narrower finding that bears on this claim