Post-retrieval noradrenergic activation impairs subsequent memory depending on cortico-hippocampal reactivation

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

How reconsolidation works - particularly in humans - remains largely unknown. With an elegant, 3-day design, combining fMRI and psychopharmacology, the authors provide evidence for a certain role for noradrenaline in the reconsolidation of memory for neutral stimuli. All memory tasks were performed in the context of fMRI scanning, with additional resting-state acquisitions performed before and after recall testing on Day 2. On Day 1, 3 groups of healthy participants encoded word-picture associates (with pictures being either scenes or objects) and then performed an immediate cued recall task to presentation of the word (answering is the word old or new, and whether it was paired with a scene or an object). On Day 2, the cued recall task was repeated using half of the stimulus set words encoded on Day 1 (only old words were presented, with subjects required to indicate prior scene vs object pairing). This test was immediately preceded by the oral administration of placebo, cortisol, or yohimbine (to raise noradrenaline levels) depending on group assignment. On Day 3, all words presented on Day 1 were presented. As expected, on Day 3, memory was significantly enhanced for associations that were cued and successfully retrieved on Day 2 compared to uncued associations. However, for associative d', there was no Cued × Group interaction nor a main effect of Group, i.e., on the standard measure of memory performance, post-retrieval drug presence on Day 2 did not affect memory reconsolidation. As further evidence for a null result, fMRI univariate analyses showed no Cued × Group interactions in whole-brain or ROI activity.

Strengths:

There are some aspects of this study that I find impressive. The study is well-designed and the fMRI analysis methodology is innovative and sound. The authors have made meticulous and thorough physiological measurements, and assays of mood, throughout the experiment. By doing so, they have overcome, to a considerable extent, the difficulties inherent in the timing of human oral drug delivery in reconsolidation tasks, where it is difficult to have the drug present in the immediate recall period without affecting recall itself. This is beautifully shown in Figure 3. I also think that having some neurobiological assay of memory reactivation when studying reconsolidation in humans is critical, and the authors provide this. While multi-voxel patterns of hemodynamic responses are, in my view, very difficult to equate with an "engram", these patterns do have something to do with memory.

Weaknesses:

I have major issues regarding the behavioral results and the framing of the manuscript.

(1) To arrive at group differences in memory performance, the authors performed median splitting of Day 3 trials by short and long reaction times during memory cueing on Day 2, as they took this as a putative measure of high/low levels of memory reactivation. Associative category hits on Day 3 showed a Group by Day 2 Reaction time (short, long) interaction, with post-hocs showing (according to the text) worse memory for short Day 2 RTs in the Yohimbine group. These post-hocs should be corrected for multiple comparisons, as the result is not what would be predicted (see point 2). My primary issue here is that we are not given RT data for each group, nor is the median splitting procedure described in the methods. Was this across all groups, or within groups? Are short RTs in the yohimbine group any different from short RTs in the other two groups? Unfortunately, we are not given Day 2 picture category memory levels or reaction times for each group. This is relevant because (as given in Supplemental Table S1) memory performance (d´) for the Yohimbine group on Day 1 immediate testing is (roughly speaking) 20% lower than the other 2 groups (independently of whether the pairs will be presented again the following day). I appreciate that this is not significant in a group x performance ANOVA but how does this relate to later memory performance? What were the group-specific RTs on Day 1? So, before the reader goes into the fMRI results, there are questions regarding the supposed drug-induced changes in behavior. Indeed, in the discussion, there is repeated mention of subsequent memory impairment produced by yohimbine but the nature of the impairment is not clear.

(2) The authors should be clearer as to what their original hypotheses were, and why they did the experiment. Despite being a complex literature, I would have thought the hypotheses would be reconsolidation impairment by cortisol and enhancement by yohimbine. Here it is relevant to point out that - only when the reader gets to the Methods section - there is mention of a paper published by this group in 2024. In this publication, the authors used the same study design but administered a stress manipulation after Day 2 cued recall, instead of a pharmacological one. They did not find a difference in associative hit rate between stress and control groups, but - similar to the current manuscript - reported that post-retrieval stress disrupts subsequent remembering (Day 3 performance) depending on neural memory reinstatement during reactivation (specifically driven by the hippocampus and its correlation with neocortical areas).

Instead of using these results, and other human studies, to motivate the current work, reference is made to a recent animal study: Line 169 "Building on recent findings in rodents (Khalaf et al. 2018), we hypothesized that the effects of post-retrieval noradrenergic and glucocorticoid activation would critically depend on the reinstatement of the neural event representation during retrieval". It is difficult to follow that a rodent study using contextual fear conditioning and examining single neuron activity to remote fear recall and extinction would be relevant enough to motivate a hypothesis for a human psychopharmacological study on emotionally neutral paired associates.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to investigate how noradrenergic and glucocorticoid activity after retrieval influence subsequent memory recall with a 24-hour interval, by using a controlled three-day fMRI study involving pharmacological manipulation. They found that noradrenergic activity after retrieval selectively impairs subsequent memory recall, depending on hippocampal and cortical reactivation during retrieval.

Overall, there are several significant strengths of this well-written manuscript.

Strengths:

(1) The study is methodologically rigorous, employing a well-structured three-day experimental design that includes fMRI imaging, pharmacological interventions, and controlled memory tests.

(2) The use of pharmacological agents (i.e., hydrocortisone and yohimbine) to manipulate glucocorticoid and noradrenergic activity is a significant strength.

(3) The clear distinction between online and offline neural reactivation using MVPA and RSA approaches provides valuable insights into how memory dynamics are influenced by noradrenergic and glucocorticoid activity distinctly.

Weaknesses:

(1) One potential limitation is the reliance on distinct pharmacodynamics of hydrocortisone and yohimbine, which may complicate the interpretation of the results.

(2) Another point related above, individual differences in pharmacological responses, physiological and cortisol measures may contribute to memory recall on Day 3.

(3) Median-splitting approach for reaction times and hippocampal activity should better be justified.