Biomedical subjects

Björn H Rasch

Publications and source records attributed to Björn H Rasch.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Combined blockade of cholinergic receptors shifts the brain from stimulus encoding to memory consolidation.

High central nervous system levels of acetylcholine (ACh) are commonly regarded as crucial for learning and memory, and a decline in cholinergic neurotransmission is associated with Alzheimer's dementia. However, recent findings revealed exceptions to this rule: The low ACh tone characterizing slow wave sleep (SWS) has proven necessary for consolidation of hippocampus-dependent declarative memories during this sleep stage. Such observations, together with recent models of a hippocampal-neocortical dialogue underlying systems memory consolidation, suggest that high levels of ACh support memory encoding, whereas low levels facilitate consolidation. We tested this hypothesis in human subjects by blocking cholinergic neurotransmission during wakefulness, starting 30 min after learning. Subjects received the muscarinic antagonist scopolamine (4 microg/kg bodyweight intravenously) and the nicotinic antagonist mecamylamine (5 mg orally). Compared to placebo, combined muscarinic and nicotinic receptor blockade significantly improved consolidation of declarative memories tested 10 hr later, but simultaneously impaired acquisition of similar material. Consolidation of procedural memories, which are not dependent on hippocampal functioning, was unaffected. Neither scopolamine nor mecamylamine alone enhanced declarative memory consolidation. Our findings support the notion that ACh acts as a switch between modes of acquisition and consolidation. We propose that the natural shift in central nervous system cholinergic tone from high levels during wakefulness to minimal levels during SWS optimizes declarative memory consolidation during a period with no need for new memory encoding.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning.

Li and Gleitman (Turning the tables: language and spatial reasoning. Cognition, in press) seek to undermine a large-scale cross-cultural comparison of spatial language and cognition which claims to have demonstrated that language and conceptual coding in the spatial domain covary (see, for example, Space in language and cognition: explorations in linguistic diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, in press; Language 74 (1998) 557): the most plausible interpretation is that different languages induce distinct conceptual codings. Arguing against this, Li and Gleitman attempt to show that in an American student population they can obtain any of the relevant conceptual codings just by varying spatial cues, holding language constant. They then argue that our findings are better interpreted in terms of ecologically-induced distinct cognitive styles reflected in language. Linguistic coding, they argue, has no causal effects on non-linguistic thinking--it simply reflects antecedently existing conceptual distinctions. We here show that Li and Gleitman did not make a crucial distinction between frames of spatial reference relevant to our line of research. We report a series of experiments designed to show that they have, as a consequence, misinterpreted the results of their own experiments, which are in fact in line with our hypothesis. Their attempts to reinterpret the large cross-cultural study, and to enlist support from animal and infant studies, fail for the same reasons. We further try to discern exactly what theory drives their presumption that language can have no cognitive efficacy, and conclude that their position is undermined by a wide range of considerations.

Cognition↗