Too Many Old Memories Can Make It Hard To Make New Memories

Studies with mice find that if neuronal arrays responsible for keeping old memories intact get too expansive they can impede working memory.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


April 6, 2007 -- Too Many Old Memories Can It Hard To Make New Memories

I often picture my brain as a dysfunctional office where the neurosecretaries are not exactly shining beacons of efficiency. There’s papers strewn all over the place, files heaped in teetering stacks, and no one ever sorts through the stuff…there’s so much useless information I can never find what I’m looking for.

Turns out that picture might not be so farfetched. Researchers at Columbia University have found that having too many memories cluttering your brain can actually make it harder to remember new things…like where you left your car keys.

It’s been known for awhile that, in mice, storing memories long-term involves making new neurons: destroy an animal’s ability to sprout new brain cells and you mess with its recollections from the past. But the new research shows that if mice have too many new neurons, they have trouble with their working memory: they take longer to find the food hidden in a maze than mice whose neuron-production has been shut down.

So the key to remembering may be: forgetting. With fewer neurons springing up, the animals may be better able to clear their brains of useless old information, which makes it easier for them to access important new information: like where they left their cheese.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe