Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
There have been two dominating theories for memory consolidation: the standard model (SM) and multiple trace theory (MTT). Whereas lesion studies have largely indicated a waning role for the hippocampus in memory consolidation, and thus have supported SM, findings from neuroimaging studies have produced varying results. Tallman et al. (this issue) argue that this variability may result from confounding factors and that, once these factors are accounted for, their neuroimaging results support SM. They do not, however, consider a third option: the unified theory. Here, we suggest that their findings, along with neurobiochemical and engram cell studies, may better fit this third theory.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2022.2076663 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!