Section 294 of 440
Complete canonical tutorial. This reader section contains the same teaching body as PWR-112 · Reacquisition and reconsolidation. Open the Power dossier.
PWR-112 · SUPERVISED full tutorial
Measure neutral association reacquisition without claiming memory reconsolidation
Reacquisition is relearning a previously learned task; reconsolidation is a proposed mechanism by which a retrieved memory may become modifiable. They are not the same. This lesson teaches a supervised neutral laboratory reacquisition method using arbitrary symbol-key pairs: learn to a fixed criterion, retain the exact stimuli and scoring, wait the declared delay, relearn with the same feedback and compare trials-to-criterion. The provider controls consent, stimuli, timing, feedback, burden and analysis. Personal memories, fear, trauma and suggestive interviewing are excluded.
1 · Permission and limits
Know exactly what you may do
2 · Get ready
Gather what you need and check the starting conditions
What you need
- Eight neutral abstract symbols and eight response keys
- Randomised acquisition and reacquisition trial software
- Immediate correct-response feedback
- Consent, distress-stop and debrief materials
- Raw trial log with accuracy, latency and criterion
- A neutral-learning record for stimulus-set version, mappings, acquisition criterion, delay, feedback schedule, retention responses, relearning trials, errors, burden and exclusions.
Before you start
- Confirm that all stimuli are neutral and contain no personal, emotional, clinical or autobiographical content.
- Write the acquisition and reacquisition criterion, delay and trial cap before testing.
- Obtain consent that distinguishes measuring relearning from changing or erasing memories.
- Archive the neutral symbol-key pairs and show the learner how responses will be entered without revealing the answers. Begin acquisition only after the mapping version, consent and fixed stopping rule are recorded.
- Teach the response rule with separate neutral examples and demonstrate the fixed acquisition criterion before presenting any scored mapping.
3 · The method
Follow these steps in order
- Define the neutral pairs
Assign each abstract symbol to one key and freeze the mapping, display time and scoring rule.
Why: Reacquisition requires the same learned content.
Check: The mapping/version is archived before acquisition.
- Teach the response rule
Show two practice symbols, let the learner press a key and reveal the correct key immediately; do not use personal meaning as a mnemonic.
Why: Neutral rule familiarisation reduces interface errors.
Check: The learner can use the keys and feedback comfortably.
- Acquire to a fixed criterion
Present all eight symbols in random order, record response and latency, and give correct-key feedback. Repeat blocks until the predeclared criterion or cap.
Why: A known acquisition endpoint is needed to measure relearning.
Check: The log shows the first block meeting criterion.
- Preserve the delay
End the session and return only after the declared delay. Do not send practice items, reminders or answers during the interval.
Why: Unrecorded rehearsal changes what reacquisition means.
Check: No exposure occurs between sessions; the visible 'Preserve the delay' check is satisfied.
- Run a no-feedback retention probe
At return, present each symbol once without feedback to record retained accuracy before relearning.
Why: Retention and reacquisition are separate outcomes.
Check: The probe is saved and not counted as a feedback block.
- Reacquire with the original method
Restart randomised blocks with the same immediate feedback, mapping and criterion. Stop at criterion or cap.
Why: Matched conditions allow trials-to-criterion comparison; this preserves the reacquisition and reconsolidation rule for 'Reacquire with the original method'.
Check: Only the delay/session label differs; the visible 'Reacquire with the original method' check is satisfied.
- Compare rates without mechanism claims
Compare acquisition and reacquisition blocks/trials to criterion, plus retention accuracy and latency. State 'faster relearning' if supported, not 'reconsolidated'.
Why: Behavioural rate does not reveal a memory-storage mechanism.
Check: The report uses the correct construct labels.
- Debrief and destroy links
Tell the learner what was measured, check distress and follow the approved data-retention/de-identification plan.
Why: Even neutral cognitive data need consent and privacy controls.
Check: The learner understands that no personal memory was evaluated or altered.
4 · Worked example
See the whole method used once
Scenario
A researcher teaches eight abstract symbol-key pairs. Criterion is two consecutive 8/8 blocks, with a 7-day delay and a maximum of 10 blocks per session.
Walkthrough
- The mapping and criterion are frozen; the learner reaches criterion after six acquisition blocks.
- No symbols or answers are shown during the seven-day delay.
- The return retention probe is 5/8 correct without feedback.
- With the original feedback method, the learner reaches two consecutive 8/8 blocks after three reacquisition blocks.
- The report says reacquisition was faster than initial acquisition in this neutral task; it does not say reconsolidation changed or erased a memory.
Result
Trials-to-criterion fell from six acquisition blocks to three reacquisition blocks, with 5/8 retained before feedback. This supports faster relearning of these pairs only and does not establish reconsolidation, trauma treatment or historical truth.
5 · Right and wrong
Compare correct or safer execution with the common wrong version
| Moment | Right / safer | Wrong / riskier | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stimuli: Reacquisition and reconsolidation checkpoint | Use neutral abstract pairs. It is correct when the mapping/version is archived before acquisition. | Use personal or emotional memories to make the task meaningful. | Personal content creates distress and suggestibility risks. |
| Criterion: Reacquisition and reconsolidation checkpoint | Freeze it before acquisition. It is correct when the learner can use the keys and feedback comfortably. | Lower it during reacquisition to show faster learning. | The comparison becomes invalid. That changes reacquisition rate and retained response after a declared delay. It is no longer the same test. |
| Delay: Reacquisition and reconsolidation checkpoint | Prevent unrecorded practice. It is correct when the log shows the first block meeting criterion. | Send reminders or answers between sessions. | Rehearsal contaminates reacquisition. That changes reacquisition rate and retained response after a declared delay. It is no longer the same test. |
| Construct: Reacquisition and reconsolidation checkpoint | Call fewer blocks faster reacquisition. It is correct when no exposure occurs between sessions. | Call it proof of reconsolidation or memory erasure. | Behaviour does not identify the mechanism. |
| Interviewing: Reacquisition and reconsolidation checkpoint | Use objective symbol responses. It is correct when the probe is saved and not counted as a feedback block. | Suggest that forgotten autobiographical events occurred. | Suggestion can create confident false reports. |
6 · Common mistakes
Spot the error and apply the correction
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Retention probe receives feedback during 'Define the neutral pairs' in reacquisition and reconsolidation. | Keep the single return probe feedback-free and separate from reacquisition. |
| Mappings change at return during 'Teach the response rule' in reacquisition and reconsolidation. | Use the archived original version and verify software hash/version. |
| Criterion is selected after seeing results. | Predeclare correct blocks/trials and cap before acquisition. |
| Faster relearning is labelled reconsolidation. | Use behavioural reacquisition language and state mechanism is untested. |
| Neutral content drifts into fear or trauma. | Stop, debrief and route any clinical research through ethics and qualified specialists. |
7 · Practice
Turn the steps into a usable skill
First session
- Provider confirms neutral content, consent and criterion.
- Complete sample-key familiarisation.
- Run randomised acquisition blocks to criterion or cap.
- Archive mapping, raw trials and no-practice delay instructions.
- Schedule the retention probe/reacquisition session and complete debrief.
Repeat plan
The provider runs one return session after the predeclared delay: one no-feedback probe followed by matched reacquisition to criterion/cap. Additional delays, reward conditions or reactivation manipulations require a new approved protocol; no personal-memory practice occurs.
Progress when
- Initial acquisition reaches the predeclared criterion with neutral stimuli.
- Return testing uses the same mapping, feedback and criterion without unrecorded exposure.
- The learner and analyst distinguish retention, reacquisition rate and reconsolidation mechanism.
Do not progress when
- Stimuli become personal, fearful, traumatic, suggestive or clinically meaningful.
- Consent, data privacy, delay integrity or original mapping cannot be maintained.
- Distress, confusion or a request to recover/erase a real memory occurs.
8 · Check the result
Measure what changed
Reacquisition rate and retained response after a declared delay
How: Compare blocks/trials to the same criterion under identical neutral mapping/feedback, retain a no-feedback retention probe, latency and errors, and predeclare any return-of-response measure.
Good result: The matched record supports a reproducible rate comparison and the conclusion separates behavioural reacquisition from an unproven reconsolidation mechanism.
This does not prove: It does not prove trauma-memory erasure, historical truth, clinical benefit or a reconsolidation mechanism.
Self-check
- Are all stimuli neutral and mappings unchanged?
- Was the return probe free of feedback?
- Can you calculate acquisition and reacquisition trials to the same criterion?
- Can you explain why faster relearning does not prove reconsolidation?
- Were suggestion, trauma and autobiographical content excluded?
9 · Stop, adapt or get help
Keep the safety boundary practical
Stop and get help
- Stop and debrief if stimuli evoke distress, fear, trauma, autobiographical uncertainty or a belief that real memory is being altered.
- Stop if consent, privacy, mapping integrity, delay or criterion is compromised.
- Postpone neutral-pair relearning when acute illness, major sleep loss, medication change or a new cognitive concern could distort recall, and route concerning neurological change for assessment.
Accessibility and adaptations
- Use accessible abstract symbols, key sizes, response devices and presentation timing while freezing the adapted fixture for both sessions.
- Provide plain-language consent and teach-back that distinguishes relearning from memory alteration.
- Present neutral pairs in large print, audio or accessible symbols and accept the matching response mode, but use that same encoding and response format at delayed retest.
10 · Evidence and limits
Why these instructions are here
- primary research
A high-powered registered replication found no persistent reactivation-extinction advantage, limiting strong reconsolidation-update claims.
No persistent attenuation of fear memories in humans: A registered replication of the reactivation-extinction effect - primary research
Reward-enhanced encoding improved relearning of forgotten associations in a declared experimental task, supporting a behavioural reacquisition measure rather than a universal mechanism claim.
Reward-enhanced encoding improves relearning of forgotten associations
Limits
- Reacquisition and reconsolidation are different constructs.
- Neutral symbol relearning cannot establish trauma treatment or autobiographical truth.
- Human reconsolidation-update findings are conflicting and require approved specialist research.
Open the complete canonical research register
- Primary empirical supportLimiting / contraryNo persistent attenuation of fear memories in humans: A registered replication of the reactivation-extinction effect
Anastasia Chalkia; Natalie Schroyens; Lu Leng; Niels Vanhasbroeck; Ann-Kathrin Zenses; Lukas Van Oudenhove; Tom Beckers · 2020 · Primary research
- Primary empirical supportLimiting / contraryPreventing the return of fear in humans using reconsolidation update mechanisms
Daniela Schiller; Marie-H. Monfils; Candace M. Raio; David C. Johnson; Joseph E. LeDoux; Elizabeth A. Phelps · 2009 · Primary research
- Primary empirical supportLimiting / contraryReward-enhanced encoding improves relearning of forgotten associations
Ewa A. Miendlarzewska; Sara Ciucci; Carlo V. Cannistraci; Daphne Bavelier; Sophie Schwartz · 2018 · Primary research
- Limiting / contraryLost in the mall again: a preregistered replication and extension of Loftus & Pickrell (1995)
Gillian Murphy; Caroline A. Dawson; Charlotte Huston; Lisa Ballantyne; Elizabeth Barrett; Conor S. Cowman; Christopher Fitzsimons; Julie Maher; Katie M. Ryan; Ciara M. Greene · 2023 · Primary research
Read the complete evidence interpretation on the Power dossier.
Tutorial delivery controls
Learn, adapt, troubleshoot and resume
Progress is saved only in this browser on this device.
Step-by-step learner mode
Each activity includes its success check, a nearby accessible alternative and an “I’m stuck” correction path. Alternatives preserve the target where possible; when they change the task, Titan labels them as related rather than equivalent.
Define the neutral pairs
Assign each abstract symbol to one key and freeze the mapping, display time and scoring rule.
Reacquisition requires the same learned content.
The mapping/version is archived before acquisition.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Assign each abstract symbol to one key and freeze the mapping, display time and scoring rule.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Neutral content drifts into fear or trauma.
Correction: Stop, debrief and route any clinical research through ethics and qualified specialists.
Stop / get help: Stop and debrief if stimuli evoke distress, fear, trauma, autobiographical uncertainty or a belief that real memory is being altered.
Teach the response rule
Show two practice symbols, let the learner press a key and reveal the correct key immediately; do not use personal meaning as a mnemonic.
Neutral rule familiarisation reduces interface errors.
The learner can use the keys and feedback comfortably.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Show two practice symbols, let the learner press a key and reveal the correct key immediately; do not use personal meaning as a mnemonic.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Mappings change at return during 'Teach the response rule' in reacquisition and reconsolidation.
Correction: Use the archived original version and verify software hash/version.
Stop / get help: Stop and debrief if stimuli evoke distress, fear, trauma, autobiographical uncertainty or a belief that real memory is being altered.
Acquire to a fixed criterion
Present all eight symbols in random order, record response and latency, and give correct-key feedback. Repeat blocks until the predeclared criterion or cap.
A known acquisition endpoint is needed to measure relearning.
The log shows the first block meeting criterion.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Present all eight symbols in random order, record response and latency, and give correct-key feedback. Repeat blocks until the predeclared criterion or cap.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Present all eight symbols in random order, record response and latency, and give correct-key feedback. Repeat blocks until the predeclared criterion or cap.” does not yet meet this declared check: The log shows the first block meeting criterion.
Correction: Return to the start of “Acquire to a fixed criterion”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The log shows the first block meeting criterion.”
Stop / get help: Stop and debrief if stimuli evoke distress, fear, trauma, autobiographical uncertainty or a belief that real memory is being altered.
Preserve the delay
End the session and return only after the declared delay. Do not send practice items, reminders or answers during the interval.
Unrecorded rehearsal changes what reacquisition means.
No exposure occurs between sessions; the visible 'Preserve the delay' check is satisfied.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “End the session and return only after the declared delay. Do not send practice items, reminders or answers during the interval.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “End the session and return only after the declared delay. Do not send practice items, reminders or answers during the interval.” does not yet meet this declared check: No exposure occurs between sessions; the visible 'Preserve the delay' check is satisfied.
Correction: Return to the start of “Preserve the delay”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “No exposure occurs between sessions; the visible 'Preserve the delay' check is satisfied.”
Stop / get help: Stop and debrief if stimuli evoke distress, fear, trauma, autobiographical uncertainty or a belief that real memory is being altered.
Run a no-feedback retention probe
At return, present each symbol once without feedback to record retained accuracy before relearning.
Retention and reacquisition are separate outcomes.
The probe is saved and not counted as a feedback block.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “At return, present each symbol once without feedback to record retained accuracy before relearning.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Retention probe receives feedback during 'Define the neutral pairs' in reacquisition and reconsolidation.
Correction: Keep the single return probe feedback-free and separate from reacquisition.
Stop / get help: Stop and debrief if stimuli evoke distress, fear, trauma, autobiographical uncertainty or a belief that real memory is being altered.
Reacquire with the original method
Restart randomised blocks with the same immediate feedback, mapping and criterion. Stop at criterion or cap.
Matched conditions allow trials-to-criterion comparison; this preserves the reacquisition and reconsolidation rule for 'Reacquire with the original method'.
Only the delay/session label differs; the visible 'Reacquire with the original method' check is satisfied.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Restart randomised blocks with the same immediate feedback, mapping and criterion. Stop at criterion or cap.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Restart randomised blocks with the same immediate feedback, mapping and criterion. Stop at criterion or cap.” does not yet meet this declared check: Only the delay/session label differs; the visible 'Reacquire with the original method' check is satisfied.
Correction: Return to the start of “Reacquire with the original method”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Only the delay/session label differs; the visible 'Reacquire with the original method' check is satisfied.”
Stop / get help: Stop and debrief if stimuli evoke distress, fear, trauma, autobiographical uncertainty or a belief that real memory is being altered.
Compare rates without mechanism claims
Compare acquisition and reacquisition blocks/trials to criterion, plus retention accuracy and latency. State 'faster relearning' if supported, not 'reconsolidated'.
Behavioural rate does not reveal a memory-storage mechanism.
The report uses the correct construct labels.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Compare acquisition and reacquisition blocks/trials to criterion, plus retention accuracy and latency. State 'faster relearning' if supported, not 'reconsolidated'.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Criterion is selected after seeing results.
Correction: Predeclare correct blocks/trials and cap before acquisition.
Possible snag: Faster relearning is labelled reconsolidation.
Correction: Use behavioural reacquisition language and state mechanism is untested.
Stop / get help: Stop and debrief if stimuli evoke distress, fear, trauma, autobiographical uncertainty or a belief that real memory is being altered.
Debrief and destroy links
Tell the learner what was measured, check distress and follow the approved data-retention/de-identification plan.
Even neutral cognitive data need consent and privacy controls.
The learner understands that no personal memory was evaluated or altered.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Tell the learner what was measured, check distress and follow the approved data-retention/de-identification plan.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Tell the learner what was measured, check distress and follow the approved data-retention/de-identification plan.” does not yet meet this declared check: The learner understands that no personal memory was evaluated or altered.
Correction: Return to the start of “Debrief and destroy links”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The learner understands that no personal memory was evaluated or altered.”
Stop / get help: Stop and debrief if stimuli evoke distress, fear, trauma, autobiographical uncertainty or a belief that real memory is being altered.
Correct versus incorrect execution
These accessible process diagrams are built from the tutorial’s own right/wrong teaching. They are not anatomical illustrations and do not add technique beyond the canonical tutorial.
Use neutral abstract pairs. It is correct when the mapping/version is archived before acquisition.
Use personal or emotional memories to make the task meaningful.
Freeze it before acquisition. It is correct when the learner can use the keys and feedback comfortably.
Lower it during reacquisition to show faster learning.
Prevent unrecorded practice. It is correct when the log shows the first block meeting criterion.
Send reminders or answers between sessions.
Call fewer blocks faster reacquisition. It is correct when no exposure occurs between sessions.
Call it proof of reconsolidation or memory erasure.
Use objective symbol responses. It is correct when the probe is saved and not counted as a feedback block.
Suggest that forgotten autobiographical events occurred.
Method-structure checklist
10 of 10 structural checks present
- Ordered, Power-specific instructions — present
- Every activity has a success check — present
- Materials or supplied records are declared — present
- Measurement or assessment rule is present — present
- Tutorial-specific troubleshooting is present — present
- Stopping or escalation boundary is present — present
- Every activity has an adjacent alternative — present
- Correct-versus-incorrect comparison is present — present
- Evidence context is bound to the Power record — present
- Planning metadata is present — present
The method-readiness band and presence checklist assess tutorial presentation and are separate from evidence quality for the underlying Power. They are automated editorial aids, not human approval.
Manual editorial sign-off: Pending. This tutorial must not display a human-approved state until an identified editor signs the exact content hash.