Scientists say this trick can help bring back fading memories
Half-forgotten memories can be resurrected using "mental time travel," a new study suggests.
The research, published Monday (July 28) in the journal PNAS, showed that a person can rejuvenate their fading memories by recalling the emotions and thoughts they had when they first stored that memory. In fact, the researchers found that the refurbished memories were then almost as retrievable as newly formed memories.
The study specifically focused on memories of learned information, as opposed to memories of events, for instance. When we learn something, that new memory teeters on a forgetting curve, like a boulder perched atop a tall mountain. As that boulder rolls downhill, we lose some details of the memory. But as it approaches the base of the memory mountain, where the incline is less steep, the rate of forgetting slows down.
There are processes that "make the memories more and more stable and less sensitive to any type of forgetting processes," said study co-author Karl-Heinz Bäuml, a psychologist at the University of Regensburg in Germany. Some details remain etched into your memory, while others fade with time. But this forgetting might not be inevitable, Bäuml argued.
"You can reduce this type of forgetting if you mentally travel back in time to the context of encoding," meaning when you made the memory. In the new study, Bäuml and colleagues explored how this mental time travel affected memory retrieval.
The team recruited over 1,200 volunteers. Half were tasked with studying a short passage, while the other half studied lists of unrelated nouns. Each group was then split into four subgroups, which were asked to remember the material in different ways.
Related: Memories aren't static in the brain — they 'drift' over time
One group, which served as a point of comparison, was asked to recall the information they had just learned several times over the next hour, without performing any extra steps. The three other groups had a gap of four hours, 24 hours or seven days between learning the material and having their memories tested.
Upon being tested, these three groups were asked to mentally time travel, either by recalling the thoughts and feelings they had during their first session in the lab or by looking at a subset of the information they'd learned, as a kind of primer to remember the rest. The comparison group was also retested at these later time points, and their recall, sans time travel, was used as a benchmark.
Both types of mental time travel helped restore the participants' recollections, rolling their memories up the mountain to some degree. At the four-hour and 24-hour marks, these tricks improved recall by "reactivating" the memories. Remembering emotions from the earlier encoding restored about 70% of the targeted memories after four hours and 59% after 24 hours, while selective priming restored about 84% and 68% of the target memories at these time points.
However, after a week, the effect of mental time travel had waned. Remembering emotions didn't restore any memories, while priming restored only 31% of the target memories.
Deniz Vatansever, a cognitive neuroscientist at Fudan University in China who was not involved in the study, said the new work refines our understanding of memory. "Memory is not just linearly decaying, but actually we're able to reset it almost into its original form," he said. However, he said the real test would be to see how these findings generalize to life outside the lab.
"Autobiographical memories or other experiences that we have in daily life — they're rich in emotional content; they're rich in sensory modalities," he noted. By comparison, memories of short passages and word lists lack these features.
RELATED STORIES
—Can your brain run out of memory?
—The brain stores at least 3 copies of every memory
—Sherlock Holmes' famous memory trick really works
Bäuml agreed that the degree of memory rejuvenation will vary with factors not explored in the current study, such as the richness of the experiences being remembered. But for now, he said the evidence suggests that, if you're aiming to ace an exam, it might be best to schedule revision sessions with only short intervals in between.
"The best way would be to distribute your mental reinstatement a little bit and do it not only after seven days, but do it after three days, six days and so forth," he said. This would "create recurring rejuvenation cycles, which keep the memories all in all at a higher level," he suggested.
While this study found that single instances of mental time travel might nudge memories back up the mountain, other research has suggested that repeated practice might make it harder for the memory to roll down in the first place, said Justin Hulbert, a neuroscientist at Bates College who was not involved in the study.
This might mean that memories need to be refreshed regularly at first — after an hour or two — but that later refreshes could wait longer, maybe months or years, Hulbert said. "That might mean that you have to push the boulder up the mountain fewer times to still preserve that memory over long periods," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Eating minimally processed meals doubles weight loss even when ultraprocessed foods are healthy, study finds
People in the United Kingdom lost twice as much weight eating meals typically made at home than they did when eating store-bought ultraprocessed food considered healthy, the latest research has found. 'This new study shows that even when an ultraprocessed diet meets nutritional guidelines, people will still lose more weight eating a minimally processed diet,' said coauthor Dr. Kevin Hall, a former senior investigator at the US National Institutes of Health who has conducted some of the world's only controlled clinical trials on ultraprocessed foods. 'This (study) is the largest and longest randomized controlled clinical trial of ultraprocessed foods to date,' Hall added. Hall's past research sequestered healthy volunteers from the world for a month at a time, measuring the impact of ultraprocessed food on their weight, body fat and various biomarkers of health. In a 2019 study, he found people in the United States ate about 500 calories more each day and gained weight when on an ultraprocessed diet than when eating a minimally processed diet matched by calories and nutrients. The weight loss from minimally processed food in the new study was modest — only 2% of the person's baseline weight, said study first author Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at the department of behavioral science and health and the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London. 'Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their (food) intake,' Dicken said in a statement. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women.' Men typically have more lean muscle mass than women, which along with testosterone often gives them a quicker boost over women when it comes to weight loss, experts say. Healthier ultraprocessed foods The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine, provided free ultraprocessed or minimally processed meals and snacks to 55 overweight people in the UK for a total of eight weeks. After a short break, the groups switched to the opposite diet for another eight weeks. Study participants were told to eat as much or as little of the 4,000 daily calories as they liked and record their consumption in a diary. By the end of the study, 50 people had spent eight weeks on both diets. While the number of participants may seem small at first glance, providing 16 weeks of food and implementing randomized controlled clinical trials can be costly. For the first eight weeks, 28 people received daily deliveries of minimally processed meals and snacks, such as overnight oats and homemade spaghetti Bolognese. Minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs, are typically cooked from their natural state, according to NOVA, a recognized system of categorizing foods by their level of processing. Concurrently, another 27 people received a daily delivery of ultraprocessed foods — such as ready-to-eat breakfast bars or heat-and-eat lasagna — for eight weeks. Ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs, contain additives never or rarely used in kitchens and often undergo extensive industrial processing, according to the NOVA classification system. Because ultraprocessed foods are typically high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat and low in fiber, they have been linked to weight gain and obesity and the development of chronic conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Such foods may even shorten life. Researchers in this study, however, did something unusual, said Christopher Gardner, Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University in California who directs the Stanford Prevention Research Center's Nutrition Studies Research Group. 'They tried to make a healthy ultraprocessed diet by picking ultraprocessed foods with the recommended number of fruits, veggies and fiber and lower levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats,' said Gardner, who was not involved in the study. Both the ultraprocessed and the minimally processed meals had to meet the nutritional requirements of the Eatwell Guide, the UK's official government guidance on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. The United States has similar dietary guidelines, which are used to set federal nutritional standards. 'This is a very solid study, matching dietary interventions for nutrients and food group distribution, while varying only the contribution of ultra-processed foods,' said Dr. David Katz, a specialist in preventive and lifestyle medicine, in an email. Katz, who was not involved in the study, is the founder of the nonprofit True Health Initiative, a global coalition of experts dedicated to evidence-based lifestyle medicine. The lure of ultraprocessed food The study's goal was weight loss, which often comes with improved cardiovascular readings, such as lower blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels. That happened, but in rather odd and surprising ways, said Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, who was asked to write an editorial to be published with the study. Instead of gaining weight, people on the ultraprocessed diet chose to eat 120 fewer calories a day, thus losing a small amount of weight. People on the minimally processed diet, however, ate 290 fewer calories a day, thus losing even more weight and some body fat as well. 'One possible explanation is that (people on the minimally processed diet) did not like the 'healthy' meals as much as their usual diets,' Nestle, who was not involved in the research, wrote in the editorial. 'They deemed the minimally processed diet less tasty,' Nestle said. 'That diet emphasized 'real' fresh foods, whereas the ultra-processed diet featured commercially packaged 'healthy' ultra-processed food products such as fruit, nut, and protein bars; sandwiches and meals; drinking yoghurts, and plant-based milks.' Less than 1% of people in the UK follow all of the government's nutritional recommendations, according to the study, often choosing ultraprocessed foods as the basis of their normal daily intake. In the US, nearly 60% of an adult's calorie consumption is from ultraprocessed foods. 'People in this study were overweight or obese and were already eating a diet high in all kinds of ultraprocessed foods,' Gardner said. 'So the ultraprocessed diet in the study was healthier than their typical normal diet. Isn't that an odd twist?' People on the minimally processed diet had lower levels of triglycerides, a type of fat in the blood linked to an increased risk of heart disease and stroke, but other markers of heart health didn't vary much between the two diets, according to the study. There was one notable exception: low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, known as 'bad' cholesterol because it can build up in arteries and create blockages to the heart. 'Surprisingly, LDL cholesterol was reduced more on the ultra-processed diet,' said dietitian Dimitrios Koutoukidis, an associate professor of diet, obesity and behavioral sciences at the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the study. 'This might imply that processing is not as important for heart health if the foods already meet the standard UK healthy eating guidance,' Koutoukidis said in a statement. 'Further research is needed to better understand this.' According to Hall, the results fit quite nicely with preliminary results from his current study that is still underway. In that research, Hall and his team measured the impact of four configurations of ultraprocessed foods on the health of 36 volunteers. Each lived for a month in the Metabolic Clinical Research Unit of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. 'When you modify an ultraprocessed diet to have lower energy (calorie) density and fewer highly palatable foods, you can offset some of the effects of ultraprocessed foods in causing excess calorie intake and weight gain,' Hall said. In other words, choose healthier foods regardless of the levels of processing. 'People don't eat the best ultraprocessed foods, they eat the worst ones, so the take home here is to follow the national guidelines for nutrient quality,' Gardner said. 'Read your nutrient label and choose foods that are low in salt, fat, sugar and calories and high in fiber, and avoid foods with too many additives with unpronounceable names. That's the key to a healthier diet.' Sign up for CNN's Eat, But Better: Mediterranean Style. Our eight-part guide shows you a delicious expert-backed eating lifestyle that will boost your health for life. Solve the daily Crossword
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Eating minimally processed meals doubles weight loss even when ultraprocessed foods are healthy, study finds
Food & health UKFacebookTweetLink Follow People in the United Kingdom lost twice as much weight eating meals typically made at home than they did when eating store-bought ultraprocessed food considered healthy, the latest research has found. 'This new study shows that even when an ultraprocessed diet meets nutritional guidelines, people will still lose more weight eating a minimally processed diet,' said coauthor Dr. Kevin Hall, a former senior investigator at the US National Institutes of Health who has conducted some of the world's only controlled clinical trials on ultraprocessed foods. 'This (study) is the largest and longest randomized controlled clinical trial of ultraprocessed foods to date,' Hall added. Hall's past research sequestered healthy volunteers from the world for a month at a time, measuring the impact of ultraprocessed food on their weight, body fat and various biomarkers of health. In a 2019 study, he found people in the United States ate about 500 calories more each day and gained weight when on an ultraprocessed diet than when eating a minimally processed diet matched by calories and nutrients. The weight loss from minimally processed food in the new study was modest — only 2% of the person's baseline weight, said study first author Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at the department of behavioral science and health and the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London. 'Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their (food) intake,' Dicken said in a statement. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women.' Men typically have more lean muscle mass than women, which along with testosterone often gives them a quicker boost over women when it comes to weight loss, experts say. The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine, provided free ultraprocessed or minimally processed meals and snacks to 55 overweight people in the UK for a total of eight weeks. After a short break, the groups switched to the opposite diet for another eight weeks. Study participants were told to eat as much or as little of the 4,000 daily calories as they liked and record their consumption in a diary. By the end of the study, 50 people had spent eight weeks on both diets. While the number of participants may seem small at first glance, providing 16 weeks of food and implementing randomized controlled clinical trials can be costly. For the first eight weeks, 28 people received daily deliveries of minimally processed meals and snacks, such as overnight oats and homemade spaghetti Bolognese. Minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs, are typically cooked from their natural state, according to NOVA, a recognized system of categorizing foods by their level of processing. Concurrently, another 27 people received a daily delivery of ultraprocessed foods — such as ready-to-eat breakfast bars or heat-and-eat lasagna — for eight weeks. Ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs, contain additives never or rarely used in kitchens and often undergo extensive industrial processing, according to the NOVA classification system. Because ultraprocessed foods are typically high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat and low in fiber, they have been linked to weight gain and obesity and the development of chronic conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Such foods may even shorten life. Researchers in this study, however, did something unusual, said Christopher Gardner, Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University in California who directs the Stanford Prevention Research Center's Nutrition Studies Research Group. 'They tried to make a healthy ultraprocessed diet by picking ultraprocessed foods with the recommended number of fruits, veggies and fiber and lower levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats,' said Gardner, who was not involved in the study. Both the ultraprocessed and the minimally processed meals had to meet the nutritional requirements of the Eatwell Guide, the UK's official government guidance on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. The United States has similar dietary guidelines, which are used to set federal nutritional standards. 'This is a very solid study, matching dietary interventions for nutrients and food group distribution, while varying only the contribution of ultra-processed foods,' said Dr. David Katz, a specialist in preventive and lifestyle medicine, in an email. Katz, who was not involved in the study, is the founder of the nonprofit True Health Initiative, a global coalition of experts dedicated to evidence-based lifestyle medicine. The study's goal was weight loss, which often comes with improved cardiovascular readings, such as lower blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels. That happened, but in rather odd and surprising ways, said Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, who was asked to write an editorial to be published with the study. Instead of gaining weight, people on the ultraprocessed diet chose to eat 120 fewer calories a day, thus losing a small amount of weight. People on the minimally processed diet, however, ate 290 fewer calories a day, thus losing even more weight and some body fat as well. 'One possible explanation is that (people on the minimally processed diet) did not like the 'healthy' meals as much as their usual diets,' Nestle, who was not involved in the research, wrote in the editorial. 'They deemed the minimally processed diet less tasty,' Nestle said. 'That diet emphasized 'real' fresh foods, whereas the ultra-processed diet featured commercially packaged 'healthy' ultra-processed food products such as fruit, nut, and protein bars; sandwiches and meals; drinking yoghurts, and plant-based milks.' Less than 1% of people in the UK follow all of the government's nutritional recommendations, according to the study, often choosing ultraprocessed foods as the basis of their normal daily intake. In the US, nearly 60% of an adult's calorie consumption is from ultraprocessed foods. 'People in this study were overweight or obese and were already eating a diet high in all kinds of ultraprocessed foods,' Gardner said. 'So the ultraprocessed diet in the study was healthier than their typical normal diet. Isn't that an odd twist?' People on the minimally processed diet had lower levels of triglycerides, a type of fat in the blood linked to an increased risk of heart disease and stroke, but other markers of heart health didn't vary much between the two diets, according to the study. There was one notable exception: low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, known as 'bad' cholesterol because it can build up in arteries and create blockages to the heart. 'Surprisingly, LDL cholesterol was reduced more on the ultra-processed diet,' said dietitian Dimitrios Koutoukidis, an associate professor of diet, obesity and behavioral sciences at the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the study. 'This might imply that processing is not as important for heart health if the foods already meet the standard UK healthy eating guidance,' Koutoukidis said in a statement. 'Further research is needed to better understand this.' According to Hall, the results fit quite nicely with preliminary results from his current study that is still underway. In that research, Hall and his team measured the impact of four configurations of ultraprocessed foods on the health of 36 volunteers. Each lived for a month in the Metabolic Clinical Research Unit of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. 'When you modify an ultraprocessed diet to have lower energy (calorie) density and fewer highly palatable foods, you can offset some of the effects of ultraprocessed foods in causing excess calorie intake and weight gain,' Hall said. In other words, choose healthier foods regardless of the levels of processing. 'People don't eat the best ultraprocessed foods, they eat the worst ones, so the take home here is to follow the national guidelines for nutrient quality,' Gardner said. 'Read your nutrient label and choose foods that are low in salt, fat, sugar and calories and high in fiber, and avoid foods with too many additives with unpronounceable names. That's the key to a healthier diet.' Sign up for CNN's Eat, But Better: Mediterranean Style. Our eight-part guide shows you a delicious expert-backed eating lifestyle that will boost your health for life.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Euronews Culture's Film of the Week: 'Jurassic World Rebirth' – A dino-mite return to form?
While the last few years have been characterised by movie lovers rightfully moaning about superhero fatigue, there is another cinematic ailment that has also taken hold: dino-fatigue. Symptoms include dejected sighs triggered by recalling the lucrative but utterly pants 2015 – 2022 Jurassic World trilogy; the sudden urge to curse Colin Trevorrow's name; and wanting to punch Chris Pratt in his perfect face every time you remember scenes of him holding up the palm of his hand to somehow communicate with raptors. It was high time for someone to step in and give the series the much-needed renaissance it deserved. Enter: Gareth Edwards, whose arresting debut Monsters, ambitious 2014 reboot of the Godzilla franchise and excellent Star Wars prequel Rogue One proved the British filmmaker has the chops to orchestrate a tense thrill ride. More than that, he's not a director who bends under the weight of an existing IP and its accompanying high expectations. Except, in the case of this seventh dinosaur instalment, he stumbles by only delivering everything you'd expect. And not a hell of a lot else. Jurassic World Rebirth picks up after the events of 2022's Jurassic World Dominion. Humans have been forced to co-exist with dinosaurs, and after a few years, everyone's also experiencing dino-fatigue. We see this early on when a billboard depicting T-Rexes gets painted over – a plot point, but also an apt metaphor for the Jurassic franchise as a whole. We meet Martin Krebs (Ruper Friend), a slimy Big Pharma bugger who enlists the services of Special Ops expert Zora Bennett (Scarlett Johansson), soldier of fortune Duncan Kincaid (Mahershala Ali) and palaeontologist Henry Loomis (Jonathan Bailey). They are tasked with retrieving biomaterial samples from the three largest remaining dinosaurs: the aquatic Mosasaurus, the avian Quetzalcoatlus, and the land-locked Titanosaurus. Krebs believes that their DNA holds the key to the development of a medical drug capable of curing cardiac disease. How that works, we have no idea. Something about haemoglobin needing to be extracted from living dinos. Anyway, it's going to make him and his company millions. The snag is that these creatures have struggled with the climate and now reside near the equator line, in remote locales reminiscent of the environments where they flourished during the Mesozoic era. So it's off to the dangerous Ile Saint-Hubert they go – where they'll also rescue the shipwrecked Delgado family, whose boat came under attack from a pack of pesky Mosasaures. Despite Gareth Edwards excellent direction, some nifty staging of CG set pieces and a handful of spectacular sequences – chiefly the riverbed encounter with a dozing T-Rex – Jurassic World Rebirth comes off as more of a nostalgic legacyquel than a rejuvenating fresh start. There's nothing wrong with loving Steven Spielberg's 1993 original, but when your reboot feels like a greatest hits compilation rather than its own thing, something's gone wrong somewhere. Worse, original Jurassic Park screenwriter David Koepp – who wowed us this year with and – returns to tick off all the staples expected from a dino romp (breathless chases, nail-biting close calls) but also lumbers his script with eye-rollingly poor exposition, ear-scraping dialogue, a lunatic focus on candy (don't ask), and some very generic characters that only serve as dinosaur fodder. It's genuinely baffling how this feels like a first draft treatment rather than a fully formed ready-to-shoot script – one which should have relegated the Delgado family plotline to the cutting-room floor. Granted, the addition of audience surrogates makes sense, but the hapless family just slows down what should have been a down-to-basics three-part quest. In Jurassic World Rebirth's defence, the obviously rushed production schedule probably didn't help. But much like our qualms with F1® The Movie, everything has to start with a decent script. Had the studio spent a bit more time polishing the screenplay instead of securing an admittedly impressive all-star cast and pushing for a Summer 2024 release slot, this could have been dino-mite. As it stands, Jurassic World Rebirth honours the magic of Spielberg's gamechanging blockbuster but downgrades what could have been a daring revival to a passably entertaining regurgitation. is out in cinemas now. Solve the daily Crossword
