Abstract
Purpose
Today’s general anesthetics were developed empirically according to their ability to produce memory blockade, analgesia, immobility, and unconsciousness. Thus, a major outstanding question remains: How do anesthetics produce their desirable behavioural end points at the molecular level? Understanding the mechanisms underlying memory blockade is of particular importance, because some patients experience the unexpected recall of events during anesthesia while others experience persistent memory deficits in the postoperative period. This review provides a brief summary of the acute memory-blocking properties of general anesthetics and the neuronal substrates that most likely contribute to memory loss.
Principal findings
Studies in human volunteers and laboratory animals have shown that the memory-blocking properties of general anesthetics depend on the specific drug, the dose, the type of memory, and the experimental paradigm, as well as the species and age of the experimental subject. The cellular substrates of memory blockade include an increase in neuronal inhibition by γ-aminobutyric acid subtype A receptors, a decrease in excitatory glutamatergic neurotransmission, and alterations in synaptic plasticity.
Conclusions
Anesthetics target different receptors and brain regions to modify the various forms of memory. In the hippocampus, extrasynaptic γ-aminobutyric acid subtype A receptors may play a particularly important role. Knowledge regarding the molecular basis of memory blockade may help to address memory disorders associated with the anesthetic state.
Résumé
Objectif
Les anesthésiques généraux actuels ont été mis au point empiriquement en se fondant sur leur capacité à bloquer la mémoire ainsi qu’à provoquer l’analgésie, l’immobilité et l’inconscience. En raison de ce développement empirique, une question cruciale demeure sans réponse: comment les anesthésiques produisent-ils leurs effets désirables sur le comportement au niveau moléculaire? La compréhension des mécanismes sous-jacents au blocage de la mémoire est particulièrement importante, étant donné que certains patients se souviennent de manière imprévue d’événements ayant eu lieu pendant qu’ils étaient sous anesthésie, alors que d’autres souffrent de troubles de mémoire persistants en période postopératoire. Ce compte-rendu présente brièvement les propriétés des anesthésiques généraux sur le blocage aigu de la mémoire ainsi que les substrats neuronaux qui contribuent très probablement à la perte de mémoire.
Constatations principales
Les études réalisées chez des volontaires humains et des animaux de laboratoire ont montré que les propriétés des anesthésiques généraux sur le blocage de la mémoire sont dépendantes du médicament en question, de sa dose, du type de mémoire, du paradigme expérimental, ainsi que de l’espèce et de l’âge du sujet soumis à l’expérience. Les substrats cellulaires de blocage de la mémoire comprennent une augmentation de l’inhibition neuronale des récepteurs de l’acide γ-amino-butyrique de type A (GABAA), une diminution de la neurotransmission glutamatergique excitatrice, et des modifications de la plasticité synaptique.
Conclusion
Les anesthésiques ciblent différents récepteurs et régions du cerveau pour modifier les diverses formes de mémoire. Dans l’hippocampe, les récepteurs extrasynaptiques de l’acide γ-amino-butyrique de type A pourraient jouer un rôle particulièrement important. Des connaissances concernant la base moléculaire du blocage de la mémoire pourraient nous permettre de mieux comprendre et traiter les troubles de la mémoire associés à l’état d’anesthésie.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
To facilitate an understanding of the memory-blocking properties of anesthetics, we begin with a brief overview of the terms that describe the various forms of memory and their underlying anatomic regions. We then describe the concentration-dependent effects of anesthetics on memory in more detail. Finally, we describe how anesthetics act to modify the function of receptors that regulate the synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus, which is thought to be a molecular substrate for long-term memory.
Learning and memory
Learning is the process of acquiring new information, skills, or thought patterns that either add to or override existing learned items.1 Memory is the capacity to retain and revive impressions or to recall or recognize experiences.2 Memory has been characterized as having three distinct temporal stages: encoding, consolidation, and retrieval.3 Encoding occurs when sensory stimuli are converted into memory and knowledge is acquired. Consolidation of memory occurs when a permanent trace or “engram” is formed and stored through the reorganization of neural circuits. The final stage, retrieval, occurs when information is brought out of storage to be recalled.3
The two major forms of memory are explicit (or declarative) memory and implicit (or non-declarative) memory (Fig. 1). Explicit memory is accessible to the conscious state and, thus, can be confirmed as facts and events. In contrast, implicit memory relates to skills and habits that are unavailable in the conscious state yet influence a person’s behaviour and mental life.4,5 Explicit memory has been further subcategorized into episodic memory and semantic memory.6 Memory for particular events, times, and places is called episodic memory, whereas semantic memory includes memory for facts about concepts or meanings that have been acquired over the course of a person’s life.
Implicit memory, which occurs in the absence of conscious recognition, has been subdivided into procedural memory and priming.7,8 Memory for how to do things is called procedural memory. It can be retrieved automatically to assist in the execution of procedures that require both cognitive and motor skills, such as riding a bike or typing. Priming is a change in the ability to identify an item as a result of a previous encounter with that item.3
Memories are not formed instantly but rather develop through time-dependent processes that involve multiple neuronal circuits.9,10 On the basis of the time interval between the learned event and its recall, memory has been further categorized into short-term memory (that occurs in the timeframe of seconds to an hour after the initial stimulus), intermediate memory (60-90 min), and long-term memory (longer than 90 min).9-11
Memory blockade has also been categorized as being either anterograde or retrograde.12 Anterograde memory blockade (or amnesia) is the loss of the ability to create new memories after an event that caused the memory loss. This condition leads to an inability to recall events that occurred after the onset of amnesia, whereas long-term memories for events that occurred before onset remain intact. Retrograde amnesia is the inability to recall events that occurred before the occurrence of the memory-blocking event.
Structures in the medial temporal lobe are particularly important for establishing long-term explicit memory. Specifically, the hippocampal formation and its adjacent cortices are essential for the formation, reorganization, and consolidation of memory during the period after learning.5,13 These structures also play a role in the storage of memories.4 The increasing importance of the cortical regions for the storage of memory as time passes after learning has recently been demonstrated.14-16 Damage to the hippocampus and related structures typically impairs recent memory yet spares remote memory in a temporally graded manner. Recent memories are more likely to be affected, and remote memories are less likely to be affected.17-20 In laboratory animals, lesions to the hippocampus, entorhinal cortex, or fornix typically impair memory for material learned up to 30 days before the lesion was introduced.17 In humans, damage to the hippocampus generally impairs memory for material that was learned a few years before the damage occurred.20,21
The expression patterns of several biochemical markers of neural activity support the importance of the cortical regions in long-term memory storage.22,23 The expression of activity-related genes, such as c-fos and Zif268, gradually decreased in the hippocampus after learning, whereas there was a parallel increase in gene expression in the cortical regions, such as the prefrontal, frontal, anterior cingulate, retrosplenial, and temporal cortices.22 Neuroimaging studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging show that gradual changes in neocortical connectivity allow for the establishment of stable long-term memory.15 As these changes occur, the role of the hippocampus (which initially interacts with the neocortex to support long-term storage of memories) declines. The long-term storage of associative memories is thought to be distributed to the relevant encoding sites of the neocortex.15
The cerebellum and the striatum are two of several brain regions that support implicit memory. One of the most studied examples of implicit memory in vertebrates is the classical eyeblink response, which depends on the cerebellum.24 The eyeblink response is a Pavlovian classical conditioning paradigm where the animal is exposed to an auditory or visual stimulus (the conditioned stimulus) that is subsequently paired with an eyeblink-eliciting unconditioned stimulus, such as a mild puff of air to the cornea.25,26 After many pairings of the conditioned (tone) and unconditioned stimuli (air puff), a learned eyeblink or conditioned response occurs that precedes the onset of the unconditioned stimulus.27
The striatum is also important for the gradual feedback-guided learning that results in the acquisition of habits.28 Neuroimaging functional magnetic resonance imaging studies of human volunteers showed that the caudate nucleus in the striatum is active when subjects acquire a habit task that can be learned only gradually by trial and error because of its probabilistic structure.29 Interestingly, patients with lesions of the hippocampus were able to learn gradually by trial and error within a given test session but could not recall the task or instructions from one session to the next.30 The learning occurred in the absence of any conscious recall at the beginning of each new test session of the previous experience. The striatum-based neural circuits have broad relevance, not only for habit learning but also for species-specific behaviours, such as birdsong learning, and for more extreme forms of acquired repetitive learned behaviours, such as addictive behaviours and neuropsychiatric conditions, including Tourette’s syndrome.31,32
The midbrain has been strongly implicated in implicit memory. In particular, reward-based learning depends on dopamine neurons in the substantia nigra and ventral tegmental area of the midbrain that project to the striatum and signal information about the value of a reward.33,34 The learned response to a reward is the strongest when the reward is most unexpected and instructive, and it is absent when the reward is fully predicted. The striatum receives both sensory and motor input from the neocortex as well as reward signals from the midbrain. These inputs may allow the stimuli and responses to become associated and consequently to guide behaviour.
Emotional learning, such as learning associated with fearful stimuli, involves the amygdala. Ablation or deactivation of the amygdala can prevent both the learning and expression of fear.35-41 In addition, the amygdala modulates fear-related learning in other brain structures, such as the cortex and hippocampus.42-45 Some types of fear conditioning, including the contextual and trace fear conditioning, also involve the hippocampus.46-51 Unlike the hippocampus, the amygdala is necessary for the acquisition of fearful memories and their long-term storage and retrieval.38,52-54
In summary, explicit memory requires structures in the medial temporal lobe, such as the hippocampal formation and several cortical regions. Implicit memory involves a number of diverse brain regions, including the cerebellum, striatum, and midbrain. The amygdala is necessary for the acquisition of fearful memories as well as their long-term storage and retrieval.
Blockade of memory by general anesthetics in humans and laboratory animals
The memory-blocking properties of general anesthetics have been investigated in some details. Briefly, low concentrations of isoflurane (at about one-fifth of the dose required for immobilization, i.e., 0.2 minimum alveolar concentration [MAC]) suppressed learning and explicit memory of verbal cues in healthy volunteers.55 Sub-sedative doses of isoflurane (0.3%) and nitrous oxide (20%) also impaired immediate and delayed word recall.56 Memory for emotional encounters was blocked by sub-anesthetic concentrations of sevoflurane (0.25%), desflurane (1.5-2 times MAC-awake), and propofol (1.5-2 times MAC-awake).57,58 At MAC-equivalent concentrations, some anesthetics are more effective than others at preventing memory. For example, both isoflurane and nitrous oxide suppressed memory in a dose-dependent manner, although isoflurane was more effective than MAC-equivalent concentrations of nitrous oxide.59 The intravenous anesthetic, ketamine, administered to human volunteers at sub-anesthetic doses (0.27 mg kg−1 over the first ten minutes then 0.12 mg kg−1 over the next 50 min) reduced memory performance for explicit word recall. At low doses, ketamine interfered primarily with early consolidation of memory, reducing the delayed recall of words presented immediately before but not during infusion of the drug.60
Different doses of anesthetics have different effects on the time-dependent types of memory. Generally, low doses of anesthetics leave very short-term memory intact, such that patients can carry on a conversation and appear to be lucid. However, long-term memory of events that occurred during the low-dose exposure (such as a conversation) is missing, possibly because memory for the events have not been transferred into intermediate-term memory.1 A gradual increase in the drug dose produces the progressive impairment of short-term memory until events occurring even one or two seconds earlier cannot be remembered.61,62 A further increase in the dose of anesthetic is associated with loss of consciousness.55,63 This deeper state of anesthesia prevents the proper encoding of sensory information, even for short-term memory, presumably because an increase in inhibitory processes blocks sensory transmission.64,65 General anesthetics generally do not impair long-term memories that have already been consolidated into long-term storage in the cortex.66,67
The brain regions involved in memory blockade have been studied using imaging techniques. Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies in human volunteers have shown that sevoflurane (0.25 MAC administered for 25 min) can depress memory-related regions in healthy volunteers, including the visual cortex, thalamus, hippocampus, and supplementary motor area.68 The primary visual cortex and other cortices with higher-order associations are particularly sensitive to memory-blocking concentrations of anesthetics.68
As evidenced by animal studies, the potency for memory blockade differs between different anesthetics. The relative potencies of five inhalational anesthetics (desflurane, sevoflurane, isoflurane, halothane, and nitrous oxide) used most commonly for a classical Pavlovian conditioning paradigm are summarized in Fig. 2.69 The behavioural assay used to measure and compare anesthetic potency was the inhibitory avoidance task. In this task, rats were trained to remain in a starting “safe” compartment for 100 consecutive seconds by administration of a foot shock (0.3 mA) each time the animals entered an adjacent unsafe or “shock” compartment. The ability to learn to avoid the shock compartment was impaired by relatively low concentrations of sevoflurane (0.3%) and halothane (0.15%) and by higher doses of desflurane (1%). Surprisingly, memory in this paradigm was not impaired by isoflurane at doses up to 0.3% or by nitrous oxide at doses up to 60%.
The potency of anesthetics for memory blockade also depends on the type of learning. Suppression of fear conditioning to tone required approximately twice the dose of isoflurane (half-maximal effective dose or ED50 = 0.47 MAC) than that required to suppress fear conditioning to context (ED50 = 0.25 MAC). Thus, relatively higher concentrations of isoflurane (>0.5 MAC) were needed to suppress fear-conditioned learning to both tone and context.70 The effects of anesthetics on memory are also age-dependent. For example, in a reversal learning paradigm, an animal or a human is trained to respond differentially to two stimuli (e.g., approach and avoidance) under reward and punishment conditions. The subject is then re-conditioned where the reward values are reversed.71 The isoflurane-sensitive memory deficits for reversal learning became more pronounced as the animals grew older.72 Finally, in surprising contrast to the results summarized above, a few studies have suggested that low doses of some anesthetics might actually enhance memory. It was reported that sevoflurane (0.1 MAC, ≥45 min) enhanced aversive memory formation in rats.73 Interestingly, lesions in the basolateral amygdala significantly reduced the anesthetic-enhanced memory performance in these animals.
Taken together, studies of human volunteers and laboratory animals have shown that the memory-blocking properties of anesthetics depend on the specific drug, the dose administered, and the memory paradigm under consideration.
General anesthetics and the neural substrates of memory
The molecular mechanisms by which some forms of short-term memory are converted to long-term memory in the hippocampus have been the subject of intense investigation.10,74-76 At the circuit level, explicit short-term memory is thought to result from the strengthening of pre-existing synaptic connections and the covalent modification of pre-existing proteins.77 Long-term memory requires the synthesis of new proteins and the growth of new synaptic connections78,79 through processes that depend on specific signalling pathways involving protein kinase A, mitogen-activated protein kinase, and cyclic adenosine monophosphate response element binding protein-1 and -2.80-82 These protein systems, together with others, induce morphological changes at synapses, such as an increase in synaptic size and spine density, that are thought to stabilize long-term memory.83,84
Long-term memory appears to involve a change in the brain at the level of the synapse called synaptic plasticity.85-89 At the molecular level, several factors are known to contribute to synaptic plasticity, including changes in the quantity of neurotransmitters released into a synapse and the response of the postsynaptic neuron to those neurotransmitters.87,90-93 Long-term potentiation (LTP), one of several phenomena underlying synaptic plasticity, is widely considered to be one of the major cellular mechanisms involved in learning and memory.86,94 Long-term memory and LTP of synapses share many similar properties, as both are triggered rapidly and depend on the synthesis of new proteins, and they can last for many months.94-96 Long-term potentiation may account for many types of learning, from the relatively simple classical conditioning that occurs in all animals97-99 to the more complex higher-level cognition observed in humans.94,100 The opposite process, long-term depression of synaptic strength, is also necessary and is normally involved in memory storage.101,102 Both the strengthening and weakening of synapses between neurons are involved in the reshaping of the neural network and the encoding of a novel engram.103
Anesthetics modify a wide variety of neurotransmitter systems that influence synaptic plasticity, including the glutamatergic, GABAergic, cholinergic, and serotonergic neurotransmitter systems, among others.65,104-108 Anesthetics generally reduce or prevent LTP-inducing memory formation and the production of memory-associated proteins primarily by altering the kinetics, conformation, gating, or catalytic properties of neuronal membrane-bound proteins. A strong association has been demonstrated between blockade of LTP by anesthetics and memory impairment.109-111
Many anesthetic-sensitive proteins are critical to establish and maintain the synaptic changes that underlie intermediate and long-term memory. These targets include the excitatory glutamate receptors and the inhibitory γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors.106-108 Ionotropic glutamate receptor subtypes, including N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptors, and kainate receptors, are involved in fast excitatory synaptic transmission, synaptic plasticity, and higher cognitive functions.112,113 Inhibitory GABA receptors, specifically the GABAA receptors, are also well characterized targets for most general anesthetics.106-108,114 The GABAA receptor is a ligand-gated ion channel that mediates the inhibitory neurotransmission in the brain. It is a pentameric receptor that selectively conducts anions, particularly chloride ions. The activation of GABAA receptors generally causes hyperpolarization of the neuron and shunting inhibition,115-117 which diminishes the chance of a successful firing of action potentials.118,119
Different anesthetics preferentially target different neurotransmitter receptors. At clinically relevant concentrations, nitrous oxide, cyclopropane, ketamine, and the noble gas, xenon, potently inhibit NMDA receptors but have little or no effect on GABAA receptors.120-122 Unlike GABAA receptors and NMDA receptors, the AMPA and kainite subtypes of glutamate receptors are not key targets for most general anesthetics,65,106 although barbiturates inhibit AMPA and kainate receptors.123-125 Intravenous anesthetics, including etomidate, propofol, and barbiturates, enhance the GABAA receptor function, and this effect contributes to hypnosis, immobility, and memory blockade.105,108,111,114,126,127 The halogenated volatile anesthetics (isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane) also enhance GABAA receptor function, although these drugs appear to be less selective for GABAA receptors than most intravenous anesthetics.105,128 Studies using site-directed mutagenesis suggest that GABAA receptors are not the sole mediators of volatile anesthetics.129 Current data suggest that volatile anesthetics act at several molecular targets, including AMPA130-132 and kainate133,134 receptors, to produce the essential neurodepressive effects.
The transmitter-gated ion channel that has gained the most attention as a target for memory blockade is the GABAA receptor. The GABAA receptor is a heteropentameric complex composed of five different subunits (Fig. 3). At least 19 mammalian genes encoding different GABAA receptor subunits and their isoforms (α1-6, β1-3, γ1-3, δ, ε, φ, π, and ρ1-3) have been identified.135 The most common combination of subunits is α, β, and γ in a ratio of 2:2:1 (Fig. 3). Changes in the subunit composition can dramatically alter the biophysical properties of the receptors and their sensitivity to anesthetics.136,137 Several components of the anesthetic state, including etomidate-induced sedation, amnesia, and immobility, have been strongly attributed to drug-receptor interactions at specific GABAA receptor subtypes (Fig. 3). Generally, anesthetics increase the potency of GABA and increase the activation of GABAA receptors, which usually leads to hyperpolarization of the cell membrane. Representative agents that have been identified as increasing the activity of this inhibitory receptor include propofol, etomidate, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, isoflurane, sevoflurane, and neurosteroids.114,118,138,139
GABAA receptor-mediated inhibition occurs in two types: phasic inhibition, which is mediated by activation of postsynaptic GABAA receptors after synchronous release of presynaptic neurotransmitters, and tonic inhibition, which is generated by high-affinity slowly desensitizing extrasynaptic GABAA receptors that are activated by low ambient concentrations of GABA.140 Phasic inhibition maintains high-fidelity neuronal communication and produces precise timing of action potentials and synchronization of neuronal populations.141,142
Enhancement of phasic inhibition was widely thought to be the primary mechanism underlying the actions of many GABAergic drugs. However, extrasynaptic GABAA receptors have recently gained considerable attention as targets of several anesthetics at memory-blocking doses. In particular, α5 subunit-containing GABAA receptors (α5GABAA receptors) are predominantly expressed in the hippocampus where they are critically involved in physiological learning and memory processes.143 Anesthetics appear to “super-activate” the α5GABAA receptor and “highjack” the normal memory-regulating physiological functions, thereby causing profound inhibition and memory blockade (Fig. 4A).111 Correlative in vivo behavioural studies showed that low clinically relevant doses of etomidate impaired hippocampal-dependent learning and memory performance in a manner dependent on the presence of α5 subunits (Fig. 4B).111 Therefore, the activation of extrasynaptic GABAA receptors by etomidate is thought to inhibit LTP and thereby prevent memory formation (Fig. 5). Equally important, the anxiolysis, loss of righting reflex, and impairment of motor coordination produced by higher doses of etomidate were independent of the α5GABAA receptors.126 Thus, the memory-blocking properties were mediated by etomidate modulation of α5GABAA receptors, but not sedation, anxiolysis, or immobility.
Interestingly, a study from the authors’ laboratory showed that anesthetic actions on α5GABAA receptors might also contribute to persistent memory deficits in the early postanesthetic period.144 Specifically, memory deficits for fear-conditioned learning were shown to last for up to 48 hr after mice were exposed to isoflurane (1.3%; 1 MAC) for one hour. These memory deficits could be prevented by pre-treating the mice (prior to the administration of isoflurane) with a drug that inhibits the function of α5GABAA receptors. Together, these findings suggest that activation of α5GABAA receptors during anesthesia may cause desirable memory blockade but also persistent undesirable memory deficits in the early postoperative period.144 The role of other populations of extrasynaptic GABAA receptors in memory blockade, including those containing the α4 and δ subunits, is the topic of ongoing studies.145-148
Conclusions
In summary, anesthetics have many targets, and different concentrations and classes of anesthetics have different effects on the various types of memory. In turn, anesthetics are currently being used as powerful probes to gain fundamental insights into the biology and neuronal substrates of memory. Such insights may allow the development of strategies to prevent and treat memory disorders associated with anesthetic states, such as intraoperative awareness149-151 and memory deficits in the postoperative period.152-154
References
Reasor JD, Poe GR. Learning and memory during sleep and anesthesia. Int Anesthesiol Clin 2008; 46: 105-29.
Squire LR, Kandel ER. Memory: from mind to molecules. Colorado: Roberts & Company; 2008.
Ghoneim MM. Drugs and human memory (part 1): clinical, theoretical, and methodologic issues. Anesthesiology 2004; 100: 987-1002.
Squire LR. Memory and brain systems: 1969-2009. J Neurosci 2009; 29: 12711-6.
Squire LR, Stark CE, Clark RE. The medial temporal lobe. Annu Rev Neurosci 2004; 27: 279-306.
Tulving E. Episodic and semantic memory. In: Tulving E, Donaldson W, editors. Organization of memory. New York: Academic Press; 1972. p. 381-403.
Forkstam C, Petersson KM. Towards an explicit account of implicit learning. Curr Opin Neurol 2005; 18: 435-41.
Leritz EC, Grande LJ, Bauer RM. Temporal lobe epilepsy as a model to understand human memory: the distinction between explicit and implicit memory. Epilepsy Behav 2006; 9: 1-13.
McGaugh JL. Time-dependent processes in memory storage. Science 1966; 153: 1351-8.
McGaugh JL. Memory—a century of consolidation. Science 2000; 287: 248-51.
Alkire MT, Guzowski JF. Hypothesis: suppression of memory protein formation underlies anesthetic-induced amnesia. Anesthesiology 2008; 109: 768-70.
Jaffard R, Beracochea D, Cho Y. The hippocampal-mamillary system: anterograde and retrograde amnesia. Hippocampus 1991; 1: 275-8.
Zola S, Squire L. The medial temporal lobe and the hippocampus. In: Tulving E, Craik F, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Memory. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 485-500.
Restivo L, Vetere G, Bontempi B, Ammassari-Teule M. The formation of recent and remote memory is associated with time-dependent formation of dendritic spines in the hippocampus and anterior cingulate cortex. J Neurosci 2009; 29: 8206-14.
Smith CN, Squire LR. Medial temporal lobe activity during retrieval of semantic memory is related to the age of the memory. J Neurosci 2009; 29: 930-8.
Moscovitch M, Rosenbaum RS, Gilboa A, et al. Functional neuroanatomy of remote episodic, semantic and spatial memory: a unified account based on multiple trace theory. J Anat 2005; 207: 35-66.
Wiig KA, Cooper LN, Bear MF. Temporally graded retrograde amnesia following separate and combined lesions of the perirhinal cortex and fornix in the rat. Learn Mem 1996; 3: 313-25.
Moss HE, Kopelman MD, Cappelletti M, de Mornay Davies P, Jaldow E. Lost for words or loss of memories? Autobiographical memory in semantic dementia. Cogn Neuropsychol 2003; 20: 703-32.
Ivanoiu A, Cooper JM, Shanks MF, Venneri A. Retrieval of episodic and semantic autobiographical memories in early Alzheimer’s disease and semantic dementia. Cortex 2004; 40: 173-5.
Squire LR, Bayley PJ. The neuroscience of remote memory. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2007; 17: 185-96.
Manns JR, Hopkins RO, Squire LR. Semantic memory and the human hippocampus. Neuron 2003; 38: 127-33.
Maviel T, Durkin TP, Menzaghi F, Bontempi B. Sites of neocortical reorganization critical for remote spatial memory. Science 2004; 305: 96-9.
Frankland PW, Bontempi B. The organization of recent and remote memories. Nat Rev Neurosci 2005; 6: 119-30.
McCormick DA, Thompson RF. Cerebellum: essential involvement in the classically conditioned eyelid response. Science 1984; 223: 296-9.
Gruart A, Blazquez P, Delgado-Garcia JM. Kinematics of spontaneous, reflex, and conditioned eyelid movements in the alert cat. J Neurophysiol 1995; 74: 226-48.
Rodriguez-Moreno A, Dominguez Del Toro E, Porras-Garcia E, Delgado-Garcia JM. The use of alert behaving mice in the study of learning and memory processes. Neurotox Res 2004; 6: 225-32.
Schneiderman N, Fuentes I, Gormezano I. Acquisition and extinction of the classically conditioned eyelid response in the albino rabbit. Science 1962; 136: 650-2.
Mishkin M, Malamut B, Bachevalier J. Memories and habits: two neural systems. In: Lynch G, McGaugh J, editors. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. New York: Guilford; 1984. p. 65-77.
Poldrack RA, Clark J, Pare-Blagoev EJ, et al. Interactive memory systems in the human brain. Nature 2001; 414: 546-50.
Bayley PJ, Frascino JC, Squire LR. Robust habit learning in the absence of awareness and independent of the medial temporal lobe. Nature 2005; 436: 550-3.
Leckman JF, Riddle MA. Tourette’s syndrome: when habit-forming systems form habits of their own? Neuron 2000; 28: 349-54.
Graybiel AM. Habits, rituals, and the evaluative brain. Annu Rev Neurosci 2008; 31: 359-87.
Schultz W. Multiple dopamine functions at different time courses. Annu Rev Neurosci 2007; 30: 259-88.
Schultz W, Dayan P, Montague PR. A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science 1997; 275: 1593-9.
LeDoux JE, Cicchetti P, Xagoraris A, Romanski LM. The lateral amygdaloid nucleus: sensory interface of the amygdala in fear conditioning. J Neurosci 1990; 10: 1062-9.
Kim JJ, Rison RA, Fanselow MS. Effects of amygdala, hippocampus, and periaqueductal gray lesions on short- and long-term contextual fear. Behav Neurosci 1993; 107: 1093-8.
Quirk GJ, Armony JL, LeDoux JE. Fear conditioning enhances different temporal components of tone-evoked spike trains in auditory cortex and lateral amygdala. Neuron 1997; 19: 613-24.
Gale GD, Anagnostaras SG, Godsil BP, et al. Role of the basolateral amygdala in the storage of fear memories across the adult lifetime of rats. J Neurosci 2004; 24: 3810-5.
Fanselow MS, Poulos AM. The neuroscience of mammalian associative learning. Annu Rev Psychol 2005; 56: 207-34.
LeDoux JE. Emotion circuits in the brain. Annu Rev Neurosci 2000; 23: 155-84.
Maren S. Neurobiology of Pavlovian fear conditioning. Annu Rev Neurosci 2001; 24: 897-931.
Roesler R, Roozendaal B, McGaugh JL. Basolateral amygdala lesions block the memory-enhancing effect of 8-Br-cAMP infused into the entorhinal cortex of rats after training. Eur J Neurosci 2002; 15: 905-10.
Seidenbecher T, Laxmi TR, Stork O, Pape HC. Amygdalar and hippocampal theta rhythm synchronization during fear memory retrieval. Science 2003; 301: 846-50.
Chavez CM, McGaugh JL, Weinberger NM. The basolateral amygdala modulates specific sensory memory representations in the cerebral cortex. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2009; 91: 382-92.
McGaugh JL. The amygdala modulates the consolidation of memories of emotionally arousing experiences. Annu Rev Neurosci 2004; 27: 1-28.
Quinn JJ, Oommen SS, Morrison GE, Fanselow MS. Post-training excitotoxic lesions of the dorsal hippocampus attenuate forward trace, backward trace, and delay fear conditioning in a temporally specific manner. Hippocampus 2002; 12: 495-504.
Chowdhury N, Quinn JJ, Fanselow MS. Dorsal hippocampus involvement in trace fear conditioning with long, but not short, trace intervals in mice. Behav Neurosci 2005; 119: 1396-402.
Misane I, Tovote P, Meyer M, Spiess J, Ogren SO, Stiedl O. Time-dependent involvement of the dorsal hippocampus in trace fear conditioning in mice. Hippocampus 2005; 15: 418-26.
Bangasser DA, Waxler DE, Santollo J, Shors TJ. Trace conditioning and the hippocampus: the importance of contiguity. J Neurosci 2006; 26: 8702-6.
Saxe MD, Battaglia F, Wang JW, et al. Ablation of hippocampal neurogenesis impairs contextual fear conditioning and synaptic plasticity in the dentate gyrus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006; 103: 17501-6.
Anagnostaras SG, Gale GD, Fanselow MS. Hippocampus and contextual fear conditioning: recent controversies and advances. Hippocampus 2001; 11: 8-17.
Wilensky AE, Schafe GE, Kristensen MP, LeDoux JE. Rethinking the fear circuit: the central nucleus of the amygdala is required for the acquisition, consolidation, and expression of Pavlovian fear conditioning. J Neurosci 2006; 26: 12387-96.
Zimmerman JM, Rabinak CA, McLachlan IG, Maren S. The central nucleus of the amygdala is essential for acquiring and expressing conditional fear after overtraining. Learn Mem 2007; 14: 634-44.
Poulos AM, Li V, Sterlace SS, Tokushige F, Ponnusamy R, Fanselow MS. Persistence of fear memory across time requires the basolateral amygdala complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009; 106: 11737-41.
Newton DE, Thornton C, Konieczko K, et al. Levels of consciousness in volunteers breathing sub-MAC concentrations of isoflurane. Br J Anaesth 1990; 65: 609-15.
Zacny JP, Sparacino G, Hoffmann P, Martin R, Lichtor JL. The subjective, behavioral and cognitive effects of subanesthetic concentrations of isoflurane and nitrous oxide in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1994; 114: 409-16.
Alkire MT, Gruver R, Miller J, McReynolds JR, Hahn EL, Cahill L. Neuroimaging analysis of an anesthetic gas that blocks human emotional memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105: 1722-7.
Chortkoff BS, Gonsowski CT, Bennett HL, et al. Subanesthetic concentrations of desflurane and propofol suppress recall of emotionally charged information. Anesth Analg 1995; 81: 728-36.
Dwyer R, Bennett HL, Eger EI 2nd, Heilbron D. Effects of isoflurane and nitrous oxide in subanesthetic concentrations on memory and responsiveness in volunteers. Anesthesiology 1992; 77: 888-98.
Parwani A, Weiler MA, Blaxton TA, et al. The effects of a subanesthetic dose of ketamine on verbal memory in normal volunteers. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2005; 183: 265-74.
Jones J, Aggarwal S. Monitoring the depth of anesthesia. In: Ghoneim MM, editor. Awareness During Anesthesia. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2001. p. 69-91.
Andrade J, Munglani R, Jones JG, Baddeley AD. Cognitive performance during anesthesia. Conscious Cogn 1994; 3: 148-65.
Andrade J. Learning during sedation, anesthesia and surgery. In: Ghoneim MM, editor. Awareness During Anesthesia. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2001. p. 93-102.
Angel A. Central neuronal pathways and the process of anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 1993; 71: 148-63.
Campagna JA, Miller KW, Forman SA. Mechanisms of actions of inhaled anesthetics. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2110-24.
Bramham CR, Srebro B. Synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus is modulated by behavioral state. Brain Res 1989; 493: 74-86.
Cirelli C, Huber R, Gopalakrishnan A, Southard TL, Tononi G. Locus ceruleus control of slow-wave homeostasis. J Neurosci 2005; 25: 4503-11.
Ramani R, Qiu M, Constable RT. Sevoflurane 0.25 MAC preferentially affects higher order association areas: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study in volunteers. Anesth Analg 2007; 105: 648-55.
Alkire MT, Gorski LA. Relative amnesic potency of five inhalational anesthetics follows the Meyer-Overton rule. Anesthesiology 2004; 101: 417-29.
Dutton RC, Maurer AJ, Sonner JM, Fanselow MS, Laster MJ, Eger EI 2nd. The concentration of isoflurane required to suppress learning depends on the type of learning. Anesthesiology 2001; 94: 514-9.
Clark L, Cools R, Robbins TW. The neuropsychology of ventral prefrontal cortex: decision-making and reversal learning. Brain Cogn 2004; 55: 41-53.
Zhu C, Gao J, Karlsson N, et al. Isoflurane anesthesia induced persistent, progressive memory impairment, caused a loss of neural stem cells, and reduced neurogenesis in young, but not adult, rodents. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2010; 30: 1017-30.
Alkire MT, Nathan SV, McReynolds JR. Memory enhancing effect of low-dose sevoflurane does not occur in basolateral amygdala-lesioned rats. Anesthesiology 2005; 103: 1167-73.
Bird CM, Burgess N. The hippocampus and memory: insights from spatial processing. Nat Rev Neurosci 2008; 9: 182-94.
Holscher C. Time, space and hippocampal functions. Rev Neurosci 2003; 14: 253-84.
Izquierdo I, Medina JH, Vianna MR, Izquierdo LA, Barros DM. Separate mechanisms for short- and long-term memory. Behav Brain Res 1999; 103: 1-11.
Mongillo G, Barak O, Tsodyks M. Synaptic theory of working memory. Science 2008; 319: 1543-6.
Martin KC, Casadio A, Zhu H, et al. Synapse-specific, long-term facilitation of aplysia sensory to motor synapses: a function for local protein synthesis in memory storage. Cell 1997; 91: 927-38.
Costa-Mattioli M, Sossin WS, Klann E, Sonenberg N. Translational control of long-lasting synaptic plasticity and memory. Neuron 2009; 61: 10-26.
Bacskai BJ, Hochner B, Mahaut-Smith M, et al. Spatially resolved dynamics of cAMP and protein kinase A subunits in Aplysia sensory neurons. Science 1993; 260: 222-6.
Dash PK, Hochner B, Kandel ER. Injection of the cAMP-responsive element into the nucleus of Aplysia sensory neurons blocks long-term facilitation. Nature 1990; 345: 718-21.
Davis S, Laroche S. Mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular regulated kinase signalling and memory stabilization: a review. Genes Brain Behav 2006; 5(Suppl 2): 61-72.
Bailey C, Barco A, Hawkins R, Kandel E. Molecular studies of learning and memory in Aplysia and the hippocampus: a comparative analysis of implicit and explicit memory storage. In: Byrne J, editor. Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference. Oxford: Elsevier; 2008. p. 11-29.
Kandel ER. The biology of memory: a forty-year perspective. J Neurosci 2009; 29: 12748-56.
Hebb DO. Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; 1949 .
Bliss TV, Collingridge GL. A synaptic model of memory: long-term potentiation in the hippocampus. Nature 1993; 361: 31-9.
Gaiarsa JL, Caillard O, Ben-Ari Y. Long-term plasticity at GABAergic and glycinergic synapses: mechanisms and functional significance. Trends Neurosci 2002; 25: 564-70.
Malenka RC, Bear MF. LTP and LTD: an embarrassment of riches. Neuron 2004; 44: 5-21.
Pozo K, Goda Y. Unraveling mechanisms of homeostatic synaptic plasticity. Neuron 2010; 66: 337-51.
Catterall WA, Few AP. Calcium channel regulation and presynaptic plasticity. Neuron 2008; 59: 882-901.
McBain CJ, Kauer JA. Presynaptic plasticity: targeted control of inhibitory networks. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2009; 19: 254-62.
Kerchner GA, Nicoll RA. Silent synapses and the emergence of a postsynaptic mechanism for LTP. Nat Rev Neurosci 2008; 9: 813-25.
Renner M, Specht CG, Triller A. Molecular dynamics of postsynaptic receptors and scaffold proteins. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2008; 18: 532-40.
Cooke SF, Bliss TV. Plasticity in the human central nervous system. Brain 2006; 129: 1659-73.
Shors TJ, Matzel LD. Long-term potentiation: what’s learning got to do with it? Behav Brain Sci 1997; 20: 597-614.
Bliss TV, Collingridge GL, Morris RG. Long-Term Potentiation: Enhancing Neuroscience for 30 Years. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004 .
Murphy GG, Glanzman DL. Mediation of classical conditioning in Aplysia californica by long-term potentiation of sensorimotor synapses. Science 1997; 278: 467-71.
Antonov I, Antonova I, Kandel ER, Hawkins RD. Activity-dependent presynaptic facilitation and Hebbian LTP are both required and interact during classical conditioning in Aplysia. Neuron 2003; 37: 135-47.
Bauer EP, LeDoux JE, Nader K. Fear conditioning and LTP in the lateral amygdala are sensitive to the same stimulus contingencies. Nat Neurosci 2001; 4: 687-8.
Teyler TJ, Hamm JP, Clapp WC, Johnson BW, Corballis MC, Kirk IJ. Long-term potentiation of human visual evoked responses. Eur J Neurosci 2005; 21: 2045-50.
Collingridge GL, Peineau S, Howland JG, Wang YT. Long-term depression in the CNS. Nat Rev Neurosci 2010; 11: 459-73.
Ge Y, Dong Z, Bagot RC, et al. Hippocampal long-term depression is required for the consolidation of spatial memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010; 107: 16697-702.
Massey PV, Bashir ZI. Long-term depression: multiple forms and implications for brain function. Trends Neurosci 2007; 30: 176-84.
Forman SA, Chin VA. General anesthetics and molecular mechanisms of unconsciousness. Int Anesthesiol Clin 2008; 46: 43-53.
Solt K, Forman SA. Correlating the clinical actions and molecular mechanisms of general anesthetics. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2007; 20: 300-6.
Hemmings HC Jr, Akabas MH, Goldstein PA, Trudell JR, Orser BA, Harrison NL. Emerging molecular mechanisms of general anesthetic action. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2005; 26: 503-10.
Grasshoff C, Rudolph U, Antkowiak B. Molecular and systemic mechanisms of general anaesthesia: the ‘multi-site and multiple mechanisms’ concept. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2005; 18: 386-91.
Rudolph U, Antkowiak B. Molecular and neuronal substrates for general anaesthetics. Nat Rev Neurosci 2004; 5: 709-20.
Rowland LM, Astur RS, Jung RE, Bustillo JR, Lauriello J, Yeo RA. Selective cognitive impairments associated with NMDA receptor blockade in humans. Neuropsychopharmacology 2005; 30: 633-9.
Ishizeki J, Nishikawa K, Kubo K, Saito S, Goto F. Amnestic concentrations of sevoflurane inhibit synaptic plasticity of hippocampal CA1 neurons through γ-aminobutyric acid-mediated mechanisms. Anesthesiology 2008; 108: 447-56.
Martin LJ, Oh GH, Orser BA. Etomidate targets α5 γ-aminobutyric acid subtype A receptors to regulate synaptic plasticity and memory blockade. Anesthesiology 2009; 111: 1025-35.
Meldrum BS, Chapman AG. Excitatory amino acid receptors and antiepileptic drug development. Adv Neurol 1999; 79: 965-78.
Wojtal K, Borowicz KK, Blaszczyk B, Czuczwar SJ. Interactions of excitatory amino acid receptor antagonists with antiepileptic drugs in three basic models of experimental epilepsy. Pharmacol Rep 2006; 58: 587-98.
Bonin RP, Orser BA. GABAA receptor subtypes underlying general anesthesia. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 2008; 90: 105-12.
Mitchell SJ, Silver RA. Shunting inhibition modulates neuronal gain during synaptic excitation. Neuron 2003; 38: 433-45.
Vida I, Bartos M, Jonas P. Shunting inhibition improves robustness of gamma oscillations in hippocampal interneuron networks by homogenizing firing rates. Neuron 2006; 49: 107-17.
Bonin RP, Martin LJ, MacDonald JF, Orser BA. Alpha5GABAA receptors regulate the intrinsic excitability of mouse hippocampal pyramidal neurons. J Neurophysiol 2007; 98: 2244-54.
Olsen RW, Sieghart W. International Union of Pharmacology. LXX. Subtypes of γ-aminobutyric acidA receptors: classification on the basis of subunit composition, pharmacology, and function. Update. Pharmacol Rev 2008; 60: 243-60.
Olsen RW, Sieghart W. GABAA receptors: subtypes provide diversity of function and pharmacology. Neuropharmacology 2009; 56: 141-8.
Franks NP, Dickinson R, de Sousa SL, Hall AC, Lieb WR. How does xenon produce anaesthesia? Nature 1998; 396: 324.
Jevtovic-Todorovic V, Todorovic SM, Mennerick S, et al. Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) is an NMDA antagonist, neuroprotectant and neurotoxin. Nat Med 1998; 4: 460-3.
Raines DE, Claycomb RJ, Scheller M, Forman SA. Nonhalogenated alkane anesthetics fail to potentiate agonist actions on two ligand-gated ion channels. Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 470-7.
Jackson MF, Joo DT, Al-Mahrouki AA, Orser BA, Macdonald JF. Desensitization of alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptors facilitates use-dependent inhibition by pentobarbital. Mol Pharmacol 2003; 64: 395-406.
Marszalec W, Narahashi T. Use-dependent pentobarbital block of kainate and quisqualate currents. Brain Res 1993; 608: 7-15.
Sawada S, Yamamoto C. Blocking action of pentobarbital on receptors for excitatory amino acids in the guinea pig hippocampus. Exp Brain Res 1985; 59: 226-31.
Cheng VY, Martin LJ, Elliott EM, et al. Alpha5GABAA receptors mediate the amnestic but not sedative-hypnotic effects of the general anesthetic etomidate. J Neurosci 2006; 26: 3713-20.
Garcia PS, Kolesky SE, Jenkins A. General anesthetic actions on GABAA receptors. Curr Neuropharmacol 2010; 8: 2-9.
Mihic SJ, Ye Q, Wick MJ, et al. Sites of alcohol and volatile anaesthetic action on GABAA and glycine receptors. Nature 1997; 389: 385-9.
Zhang Y, Wu S, Eger EI 2nd, Sonner JM. Neither GABAA nor strychnine-sensitive glycine receptors are the sole mediators of MAC for isoflurane. Anesth Analg 2001; 92: 123-7.
Cheng G, Kendig JJ. Enflurane decreases glutamate neurotransmission to spinal cord motor neurons by both pre- and postsynaptic actions. Anesth Analg 2003; 96: 1354-9.
Cheng G, Kendig JJ. Enflurane directly depresses glutamate AMPA and NMDA currents in mouse spinal cord motor neurons independent of actions on GABAA or glycine receptors. Anesthesiology 2000; 93: 1075-84.
Krasowski MD, Harrison NL. General anaesthetic actions on ligand-gated ion channels. Cell Mol Life Sci 1999; 55: 1278-303.
Dildy-Mayfield JE, Eger EI 2nd, Harris RA. Anesthetics produce subunit-selective actions on glutamate receptors. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1996; 276: 1058-65.
Minami K, Wick MJ, Stern-Bach Y, et al. Sites of volatile anesthetic action on kainate (Glutamate receptor 6) receptors. J Biol Chem 1998; 273: 8248-55.
Macdonald RL, Olsen RW. GABAA receptor channels. Annu Rev Neurosci 1994; 17: 569-602.
Barnard EA, Skolnick P, Olsen RW, et al. International Union of Pharmacology XV. Subtypes of γ-aminobutyric acidA receptors: classification on the basis of subunit structure and receptor function. Pharmacol Rev 1998; 50: 291-313.
Harris RA, Mihic SJ, Dildy-Mayfield JE, Machu TK. Actions of anesthetics on ligand-gated ion channels: role of receptor subunit composition. FASEB J 1995; 9: 1454-62.
Belelli D, Lambert JJ. Neurosteroids: endogenous regulators of the GABAA receptor. Nat Rev Neurosci 2005; 6: 565-75.
Sieghart W. Structure and pharmacology of γ-aminobutyric acidA receptor subtypes. Pharmacol Rev 1995; 47: 181-234.
Farrant M, Nusser Z. Variations on an inhibitory theme: phasic and tonic activation of GABAA receptors. Nat Rev Neurosci 2005; 6: 215-29.
Bevan MD, Magill PJ, Hallworth NE, Bolam JP, Wilson CJ. Regulation of the timing and pattern of action potential generation in rat subthalamic neurons in vitro by GABA-A IPSPs. J Neurophysiol 2002; 87: 1348-62.
Pouille F, Scanziani M. Enforcement of temporal fidelity in pyramidal cells by somatic feed-forward inhibition. Science 2001; 293: 1159-63.
Martin LJ, Zurek AA, MacDonald JF, Roder JC, Jackson MF, Orser BA. Alpha5GABAA receptor activity sets the threshold for long-term potentiation and constrains hippocampus-dependent memory. J Neurosci 2010; 30: 5269-82.
Saab BJ, Maclean AJ, Kanisek M, et al. Short-term memory impairment after isoflurane in mice is prevented by the α5 γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptor inverse agonist L-655, 708. Anesthesiology 2010; 113: 1061-71.
Belelli D, Peden DR, Rosahl TW, Wafford KA, Lambert JJ. Extrasynaptic GABAA receptors of thalamocortical neurons: a molecular target for hypnotics. J Neurosci 2005; 25: 11513-20.
Jia F, Pignataro L, Schofield CM, Yue M, Harrison NL, Goldstein PA. An extrasynaptic GABAA receptor mediates tonic inhibition in thalamic VB neurons. J Neurophysiol 2005; 94: 4491-501.
Mody I. Distinguishing between GABAA receptors responsible for tonic and phasic conductances. Neurochem Res 2001; 26: 907-13.
Rau V, Iyer SV, Oh I, et al. GABAA receptor alpha 4 subunit knockout mice are resistant to the amnestic effect of isoflurane. Anesth Analg 2009; 109: 1816-22.
Robins K, Lyons G. Intraoperative awareness during general anesthesia for cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg 2009; 109: 886-90.
Sandin RH, Enlund G, Samuelsson P, Lennmarken C. Awareness during anaesthesia: a prospective case study. Lancet 2000; 355: 707-11.
Sebel PS, Bowdle TA, Ghoneim MM, et al. The incidence of awareness during anesthesia: a multicenter United States study. Anesth Analg 2004; 99: 833-9.
Moller JT, Cluitmans P, Rasmussen LS, et al. Long-term postoperative cognitive dysfunction in the elderly ISPOCD1 study. ISPOCD investigators. International Study of Post-Operative Cognitive Dysfunction. Lancet 1998; 351: 857-61.
Caza N, Taha R, Qi Y, Blaise G. The effects of surgery and anesthesia on memory and cognition. Prog Brain Res 2008; 169: 409-22.
Sauer AM, Kalkman C, van Dijk D. Postoperative cognitive decline. J Anesth 2009; 23: 256-9.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Robert P. Bonin for creating Fig. 3 in this manuscript and also thank Dr. Sinziana Avramescu and Ms. Agnieszka Zurek for their critical reading of this manuscript. Dr. Beverley A. Orser is supported by Canadian Institute of Health Research operating grants, MOP-38028 and MOP-79428, and holds a Canadian Research Chair in Anesthesia.
Conflicts of interest
None declared.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article is accompanied by an editorial. Please see Can J Anesth 2011; 58(2).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, DS., Orser, B.A. Inhibition of learning and memory by general anesthetics. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth 58, 167–177 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-010-9428-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-010-9428-8