<p>I second the comments on the question that the question-post looks kind of convoluted. But it seems it all boils down to the question:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>How does our brain store motor skills without any apparent long-term potentiation or protein synthesis?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I personally think the question premise, <em>i.e.</em> "<em>LTP and protein synthesis are not involved in motor learning</em>", is incorrect to start with.</p>

<ul>
<li>Firstly, motor learning has been linked to <strong>long-term potentiation</strong> in the primary motor cortex <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25972791" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Avinzino <em>et al</em>., 2015)</a>;</li>
<li>Secondly, <strong>protein expression</strong> is involved in motor learning as well. <strong><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8971979" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Fos expression</a></strong> has been used for decades as an immunohistochemical protein marker for neural activation. Fos expression in the motor cortex has been linked to motor learning, alongside synaptogenisis processes <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8699262" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Kleim <em>et al</em>., 1996)</a>. </li>
</ul>

<p><sub><strong>References</strong><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25972791" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Avinzino <em>et al</em>., <em>Front Behav Neurosci</em> (2015); <strong>9</strong>:105</a><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8699262" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kleim <em>et al</em>., <em>J Neurosci</em> (1996); <strong>16</strong>(14): 4529-35</a></sub>   </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-20T19:45:42.607Z
Thanks for the answer. Now that the misconception has been removed front mind, I can think more directly. I guess I should have asked whether that meat analysis was correct. That would have been more straightforward.
Spero
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-20T19:56:41.040Z
If LTP for motor learning happens in motor cortex, that means hippocampus plays no role here. Strange. Now I need to find what is special about motor cortex that makes its memories so permanent.
Spero
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-20T20:34:51.250Z
@Spero - If your question has generated a new question, please feel more than free to ask a ***new*** question. It sounds like an interesting one. This one clarified the premise, a new, separate question is totally valid. PS - I would rather post a new question, rather than editing this post as it has an upvoted answer. You can always link to this post in your other question. Anyways - up to you :-)
AliceD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-20T20:37:06.280Z
Thx do the advise. Don't worry. I will only post a new question after performing as much research on it as I can.
Spero
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T18:23:33.713Z
I found out that permanent motor skills (those that become muscle memory) are stored in Basal Ganglia, not in Motor Cortex. Maybe that meta-analysis is not completely bogus after-all. Maybe motor cortex memories stay fragile even after protein synthesis, although I still don't know how long it takes until a memory goes through protein synthesis.
Spero
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-20T19:36:24.397Z
2017-04-20T19:46:23.117Z
2017-04-20T19:46:23.117Z
AliceD
<p>The way I understand it, memory goes through calcium influx induced LTP (Long Term potentiation) for short term storage. Long term storage requires protein synthesis. (#1).</p>

<p>However, a meta-analysis (#2) shows that:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>a procedural memory may never become fully stable and instead remains vulnerable to interference. When exposed to task B, participants may have retrieved the procedural memory associated with task A and modified it, ‘overwriting’ the memory for task A with information relevant to task B............ It implies that learning a new skill leads to the automatic destruction of another skill. It would never be possible to have skill in more than one task! Our ability to acquire multiple skills may depend upon having contextual cues available to signal the switch from one task to another.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This indicates that procedural memory never goes through protein synthesis. The problem is, procedural memory can be divided into three parts: 1. Motor, 2. Perceptual, 3. Cognitive (#3). We all know that motor skills are not volatile after being practiced. Only something like Parkinson's disease can damage motor skills (#4) while perceptual skills seem even more secure. Cognitive procedural memory alone seems very vulnerable, but I don't know why this is an exception. </p>

<p>Is there any theory that explains how our brain can store motor skills without any apparent LTP and protein synthesis phases?</p>

<hr>

<p>#1. Biopsychology by John P. J. Pinel 6th ed. P. 285</p>

<p>#2. <a href="http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(04)00937-6.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(04)00937-6.pdf</a></p>

<p>#3. <a href="http://medicalfinder.jp/doi/abs/10.11477/mf.1416100315" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://medicalfinder.jp/doi/abs/10.11477/mf.1416100315</a></p>

<p>#4. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01688639008400978" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01688639008400978</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-20T16:19:36.370Z
Voting to close, there is just too much overlapping sources and information, multiple questions and hypothesis to make a clear question/answer.
Keno
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-20T17:06:21.960Z
@I have already mentioned that my sources are conflicting. Can you kindly suggest an edit?
Spero
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-20T17:23:40.000Z
@Keno What can I do if researches conflict each-other? About there being too many questions, I do not think so. I will try my best to  edit it to make my question stand out more clearly.
Spero
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-20T17:37:51.540Z
So my main issue is that from the first few words there are inaccuracies >"The way I understand it, memory" Memory is not an unitary term, which specific memory ( which in itself is a debated topic) are you referring to and based on which model. And on and on, so I could spend the day picking your post apart, I recommend a few books: Cognitive Neuroscience ( Gazzaniga ), The Oxford Handbook of Memory ( Tulving ) Memory: From Mind to Molecules ( Kandel ) Learning and Memory (Gluck), you can edit it, but I would recommend narrowing it down.
Keno
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-20T17:59:51.393Z
@Keno Thanks for the book suggestions, but why are you so interested in picking the question apart given that I already admitted that I am confused? The books I study do not go that deep. That is why I was asking for help. You have been helpful though. I will try the books you suggested.Thanks again for that.
Spero
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-20T18:24:01.777Z
@Keno, if you see some inaccuracies in one's initial knowledge, assumptions or research, perhaps you could provide some clarification in an answer? I see a nicely researched an clear question to be fair. Spero, related is https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/13693/11318 in which I gave one of my earlier, not (well) referenced or thorough answer.
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-20T18:41:23.640Z
@RobinKramer Thanks for the encouragement. To be honest, I have the habit of making lots of initial mistakes, but conversation/discussion helps clearing my mind. I have already made a few edits. The initial question was mess. That is how it works when you respond to my questions as well. I was expecting criticism, but not the VTC.
Spero
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-20T19:05:00.370Z
@RobinKramer: After the edit it is more manageable, but the answer would be a clarification of why the question conflicts with established models, rather than a definitive (within established models) answer. Some level of discussion and clarification is normal I guess, but if the whole question deserves a clarification I think it should be closed,edited or asked differently, further if it is speculative in nature I think closing it pollutes less than clarifying ( this I think is the stack way), but I might be wrong, hence we vote.
Keno
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T08:40:58.707Z
@Spero A 'vote to close' (more aptly named 'put on hold' now) _is_ criticism. It states why the question (as is) can not be answered, and thus requires edits prior to allowing answers to be posted. Seemingly this process worked. :) Furthermore, putting questions on hold is a democratic process; as can be seen in these comments, not everyone necessarily agrees.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-21T10:03:16.020Z
@StevenJeuris Sorry about that. Old habits die hard. Frankly speaking, I get VTCs a lot and the silent ones are most troublesome because I don't know what to do. At least Keno explained the reason and gave me a chance to discuss it. My "too broad" questions are often the result of poor understanding which I need help with. Writing a specific question with poor understanding of the basics often result in a question which is of no use (like my previous question. Now I know that procedural memory does not seem go through hippocampus, so I really learned nothing from the previous question).
Spero
<procedural-memory><ltp><cognitive>
How does the human brain store motor skills for long term?
Spero
# How does the human brain store motor skills for long term?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-04-20)

The way I understand it, memory goes through calcium influx induced LTP (Long Term potentiation) for short term storage. Long term storage requires protein synthesis. (#1).

However, a meta-analysis (#2) shows that:

> a procedural memory may never become fully stable and instead remains vulnerable to interference. When exposed to task B, participants may have retrieved the procedural memory associated with task A and modified it, ‘overwriting’ the memory for task A with information relevant to task B............ It implies that learning a new skill leads to the automatic destruction of another skill. It would never be possible to have skill in more than one task! Our ability to acquire multiple skills may depend upon having contextual cues available to signal the switch from one task to another.

This indicates that procedural memory never goes through protein synthesis. The problem is, procedural memory can be divided into three parts: 1. Motor, 2. Perceptual, 3. Cognitive (#3). We all know that motor skills are not volatile after being practiced. Only something like Parkinson's disease can damage motor skills (#4) while perceptual skills seem even more secure. Cognitive procedural memory alone seems very vulnerable, but I don't know why this is an exception.

Is there any theory that explains how our brain can store motor skills without any apparent LTP and protein synthesis phases?

---

#1. Biopsychology by John P. J. Pinel 6th ed. P. 285

#2. <http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(04)00937-6.pdf>

#3. <http://medicalfinder.jp/doi/abs/10.11477/mf.1416100315>

#4. <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01688639008400978>

**Tags:** procedural-memory, ltp, cognitive

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Voting to close, there is just too much overlapping sources and information, multiple questions and hypothesis to make a clear question/answer.  
> **username_0**: @I have already mentioned that my sources are conflicting. Can you kindly suggest an edit?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 What can I do if researches conflict each-other? About there being too many questions, I do not think so. I will try my best to  edit it to make my question stand out more clearly.  
> **username_1**: So my main issue is that from the first few words there are inaccuracies >"The way I understand it, memory" Memory is not an unitary term, which specific memory ( which in itself is a debated topic) are you referring to and based on which model. And on and on, so I could spend the day picking your post apart, I recommend a few books: Cognitive Neuroscience ( Gazzaniga ), The Oxford Handbook of Memory ( Tulving ) Memory: From Mind to Molecules ( Kandel ) Learning and Memory (Gluck), you can edit it, but I would recommend narrowing it down.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Thanks for the book suggestions, but why are you so interested in picking the question apart given that I already admitted that I am confused? The books I study do not go that deep. That is why I was asking for help. You have been helpful though. I will try the books you suggested.Thanks again for that.  
> **username_2**: @username_1, if you see some inaccuracies in one's initial knowledge, assumptions or research, perhaps you could provide some clarification in an answer? I see a nicely researched an clear question to be fair. username_0, related is https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/13693/11318 in which I gave one of my earlier, not (well) referenced or thorough answer.  
> **username_0**: @RobinKramer Thanks for the encouragement. To be honest, I have the habit of making lots of initial mistakes, but conversation/discussion helps clearing my mind. I have already made a few edits. The initial question was mess. That is how it works when you respond to my questions as well. I was expecting criticism, but not the VTC.  
> **username_1**: @RobinKramer: After the edit it is more manageable, but the answer would be a clarification of why the question conflicts with established models, rather than a definitive (within established models) answer. Some level of discussion and clarification is normal I guess, but if the whole question deserves a clarification I think it should be closed,edited or asked differently, further if it is speculative in nature I think closing it pollutes less than clarifying ( this I think is the stack way), but I might be wrong, hence we vote.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 A 'vote to close' (more aptly named 'put on hold' now) _is_ criticism. It states why the question (as is) can not be answered, and thus requires edits prior to allowing answers to be posted. Seemingly this process worked. :) Furthermore, putting questions on hold is a democratic process; as can be seen in these comments, not everyone necessarily agrees.  
> **username_0**: @StevenJeuris Sorry about that. Old habits die hard. Frankly speaking, I get VTCs a lot and the silent ones are most troublesome because I don't know what to do. At least username_1 explained the reason and gave me a chance to discuss it. My "too broad" questions are often the result of poor understanding which I need help with. Writing a specific question with poor understanding of the basics often result in a question which is of no use (like my previous question. Now I know that procedural memory does not seem go through hippocampus, so I really learned nothing from the previous question).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-04-20. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

I second the comments on the question that the question-post looks kind of convoluted. But it seems it all boils down to the question:

> How does our brain store motor skills without any apparent long-term potentiation or protein synthesis?

I personally think the question premise, *i.e.* "*LTP and protein synthesis are not involved in motor learning*", is incorrect to start with.

* Firstly, motor learning has been linked to **long-term potentiation** in the primary motor cortex [(Avinzino *et al*., 2015)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25972791);
* Secondly, **protein expression** is involved in motor learning as well. **[Fos expression](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8971979)** has been used for decades as an immunohistochemical protein marker for neural activation. Fos expression in the motor cortex has been linked to motor learning, alongside synaptogenisis processes [(Kleim *et al*., 1996)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8699262).

**References**  
**-** [Avinzino *et al*., *Front Behav Neurosci* (2015); **9**:105](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25972791)  
**-** [Kleim *et al*., *J Neurosci* (1996); **16**(14): 4529-35](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8699262)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for the answer. Now that the misconception has been removed front mind, I can think more directly. I guess I should have asked whether that meat analysis was correct. That would have been more straightforward.  
> **username_0**: If LTP for motor learning happens in motor cortex, that means hippocampus plays no role here. Strange. Now I need to find what is special about motor cortex that makes its memories so permanent.  
> **username_4**: @username_0 - If your question has generated a new question, please feel more than free to ask a ***new*** question. It sounds like an interesting one. This one clarified the premise, a new, separate question is totally valid. PS - I would rather post a new question, rather than editing this post as it has an upvoted answer. You can always link to this post in your other question. Anyways - up to you :-)  
> **username_0**: Thx do the advise. Don't worry. I will only post a new question after performing as much research on it as I can.  
> **username_0**: I found out that permanent motor skills (those that become muscle memory) are stored in Basal Ganglia, not in Motor Cortex. Maybe that meta-analysis is not completely bogus after-all. Maybe motor cortex memories stay fragile even after protein synthesis, although I still don't know how long it takes until a memory goes through protein synthesis.  

---

