Appraising reconsolidation theory and its empirical validation

Re-exposure to elements of prior experiences can create opportunities for inducing amnesia for those events. The dominant theoretical framework posits that such re-exposure can result in memory destabilization, making the memory representation temporarily sensitive to disruption while it awaits reconsolidation. If true, such a mechanism that allows for memories to be permanently changed could have important implications for the treatment of several forms of psychopathology. However, there have been contradictory findings and elusive occurrences of replication failures within the "reconsolidation" field. Considering its potential relevance for clinical applications, the fact that this "hot" research area is being dominated by a single mechanistic theory, and the presence of unexplainable contradictory findings, we believe that it is both useful and timely to critically evaluate the reconsolidation framework. We discuss potential issues that may arise from how reconsolidation interference has typically been deducted from behavioral observations, and provide a principled assessment of reconsolidation theory that illustrates that the theory and its proposed boundary conditions are vaguely defined, which has made it close to impossible to refute reconsolidation theory. We advocate for caution, encouraging researchers not to blindly assume that a reconsolidation process must underlie their findings, and pointing out the risks of doing so. Finally, we suggest concrete theoretical and methodological advances that can promote a fruitful translation of reminder-dependent amnesia into clinical treatment.