4
|
Abstract
Prior knowledge has long been known to shape new episodic memories. However, it is less clear how prior knowledge can scaffold the learning of a new class of information, and how this can bias memory for the episodes that contributed to its acquisition. We aimed to quantify distortions in episodic memories resulting from the use of prior category knowledge to facilitate learning new information. Across 4 experiments, participants encoded and retrieved image-location associations. Most members of a category (e.g., birds) were located near each other, such that participants could leverage their prior category knowledge to learn the spatial locations of categories as they encoded specific image locations. Critically, some typical and atypical category members were in random locations. We decomposed location memory into 2 measures: error, a measure of episodic specificity; and bias toward other category members, a measure of the influence of newly-learned information about category locations. First, we found that location memory was more accurate for images whose locations were spatially consistent with their category membership. Second, when images were spatially inconsistent (i.e., in random locations), retrieval of typical category members was more biased toward their category's location relative to atypical ones. These effects replicated across 3 experiments, disappeared when images were not arranged by category, and were stronger than effects observed with images arranged by visual similarity rather than category membership. Our observations provide compelling evidence that memory is a reconstruction of multiple sources of prior knowledge, new learning, and memory for specific events. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Collapse
|
5
|
Abstract
Episodic memory retrieval is increasingly influenced by schematic information as memories mature, but it is unclear whether this is due to the slow formation of schemas over time, or the slow forgetting of the episodes. To address this, we separately probed memory for newly learned schemas as well as their influence on episodic memory decisions. In this experiment, participants encoded images from two categories, with the location of images in each category drawn from a different spatial distribution. They could thus learn schemas of category locations by encoding specific episodes. We found that images that were more consistent with these distributions were more precisely retrieved, and this schematic influence increased over time. However, memory for the schema distribution, measured using generalization to novel images, also became less precise over time. This incongruity suggests that schemas form rapidly, but their influence on episodic retrieval is dictated by the need to bolster fading memory representations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexa Tompary
- Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
| | - WenXi Zhou
- Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, NY, 10003, USA
| | - Lila Davachi
- Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA
- Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, NY, 10962, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Tompary A, Duncan K, Davachi L. High-resolution investigation of memory-specific reinstatement in the hippocampus and perirhinal cortex. Hippocampus 2016; 26:995-1007. [PMID: 26972485 DOI: 10.1002/hipo.22582] [Citation(s) in RCA: 63] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2015] [Revised: 02/03/2016] [Accepted: 03/01/2016] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Episodic memory involves remembering the details that characterize a prior experience. Successful memory recovery has been associated with the reinstatement of brain activity patterns in a number of sensory regions across the cortex. However, how the hippocampus and surrounding medial temporal lobe (MTL) cortex contribute to this process is less clear. Models of episodic memory posit that hippocampal pattern reinstatement, also referred to as pattern completion, may mediate cortical reinstatement during retrieval. Empirical evidence of this process, however, remains elusive. Here, we use high-resolution fMRI and encoding-retrieval multi-voxel pattern similarity analyses to demonstrate for the first time that the hippocampus, particularly right hippocampal subfield CA1, shows evidence of reinstating individual episodic memories. Furthermore, reinstatement in perirhinal cortex (PrC) is also evident. Critically, we identify distinct factors that may mediate the cortical reinstatement in PrC. First, we find that encoding activation in PrC is related to later reinstatement in this region, consistent with the theory that encoding strength in the regions that process the memoranda is important for later reinstatement. Conversely, retrieval activation in right CA1 was correlated with reinstatement in PrC, consistent with models of pattern completion. This dissociation is discussed in the context of the flow of information into and out of the hippocampus during encoding and retrieval, respectively. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Lila Davachi
- Department of Psychology, New York University.,Center for Neural Science, New York University
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Yushkevich PA, Amaral RSC, Augustinack JC, Bender AR, Bernstein JD, Boccardi M, Bocchetta M, Burggren AC, Carr VA, Chakravarty MM, Chételat G, Daugherty AM, Davachi L, Ding SL, Ekstrom A, Geerlings MI, Hassan A, Huang Y, Iglesias JE, La Joie R, Kerchner GA, LaRocque KF, Libby LA, Malykhin N, Mueller SG, Olsen RK, Palombo DJ, Parekh MB, Pluta JB, Preston AR, Pruessner JC, Ranganath C, Raz N, Schlichting ML, Schoemaker D, Singh S, Stark CEL, Suthana N, Tompary A, Turowski MM, Van Leemput K, Wagner AD, Wang L, Winterburn JL, Wisse LEM, Yassa MA, Zeineh MM. Quantitative comparison of 21 protocols for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions in in vivo MRI: towards a harmonized segmentation protocol. Neuroimage 2015; 111:526-41. [PMID: 25596463 PMCID: PMC4387011 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 226] [Impact Index Per Article: 25.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2014] [Revised: 11/25/2014] [Accepted: 01/01/2015] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE An increasing number of human in vivo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have focused on examining the structure and function of the subfields of the hippocampal formation (the dentate gyrus, CA fields 1-3, and the subiculum) and subregions of the parahippocampal gyrus (entorhinal, perirhinal, and parahippocampal cortices). The ability to interpret the results of such studies and to relate them to each other would be improved if a common standard existed for labeling hippocampal subfields and parahippocampal subregions. Currently, research groups label different subsets of structures and use different rules, landmarks, and cues to define their anatomical extents. This paper characterizes, both qualitatively and quantitatively, the variability in the existing manual segmentation protocols for labeling hippocampal and parahippocampal substructures in MRI, with the goal of guiding subsequent work on developing a harmonized substructure segmentation protocol. METHOD MRI scans of a single healthy adult human subject were acquired both at 3 T and 7 T. Representatives from 21 research groups applied their respective manual segmentation protocols to the MRI modalities of their choice. The resulting set of 21 segmentations was analyzed in a common anatomical space to quantify similarity and identify areas of agreement. RESULTS The differences between the 21 protocols include the region within which segmentation is performed, the set of anatomical labels used, and the extents of specific anatomical labels. The greatest overall disagreement among the protocols is at the CA1/subiculum boundary, and disagreement across all structures is greatest in the anterior portion of the hippocampal formation relative to the body and tail. CONCLUSIONS The combined examination of the 21 protocols in the same dataset suggests possible strategies towards developing a harmonized subfield segmentation protocol and facilitates comparison between published studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul A Yushkevich
- Penn Image Computing and Science Laboratory, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, USA.
| | - Robert S C Amaral
- Cerebral Imaging Centre, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, McGill University, Canada
| | - Jean C Augustinack
- A.A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, USA
| | | | - Jeffrey D Bernstein
- Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, USA; Stanford Center for Memory Disorders, USA
| | - Marina Boccardi
- LENITEM (Laboratory of Epidemiology, Neuroimaging and Telemedicine), IRCCS Centro S. Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Italy
| | - Martina Bocchetta
- LENITEM (Laboratory of Epidemiology, Neuroimaging and Telemedicine), IRCCS Centro S. Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Italy; Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| | - Alison C Burggren
- Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | | | - M Mallar Chakravarty
- Cerebral Imaging Centre, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, McGill University, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, Department of Biomedical Engineering, McGill University, Canada
| | - Gaël Chételat
- INSERM U1077, Universitè de Caen Basse-Normandie, UMR-S1077, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, CHU de Caen, U1077, Caen, France
| | - Ana M Daugherty
- Institute of Gerontology, Wayne State University, USA; Psychology Department, Wayne State University, USA
| | - Lila Davachi
- Department of Psychology, New York University, USA; Center for Neural Science, New York University, USA
| | | | - Arne Ekstrom
- Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, USA; Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, USA
| | - Mirjam I Geerlings
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Abdul Hassan
- Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, USA
| | - Yushan Huang
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - J Eugenio Iglesias
- A.A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, USA; Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language (BCBL), Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain
| | - Renaud La Joie
- INSERM U1077, Universitè de Caen Basse-Normandie, UMR-S1077, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, CHU de Caen, U1077, Caen, France
| | - Geoffrey A Kerchner
- Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, USA; Stanford Center for Memory Disorders, USA
| | | | - Laura A Libby
- Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, USA
| | - Nikolai Malykhin
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Centre for Neuroscience, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Susanne G Mueller
- Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, USA; Center for Imaging of Neurodegenerative Diseases, San Francisco VA Medical Center, USA
| | | | | | | | - John B Pluta
- Penn Image Computing and Science Laboratory, Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, USA; Department of Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Alison R Preston
- Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, USA; Center for Learning and Memory, The University of Texas at Austin, USA; Department of Neuroscience, The University of Texas at Austin, USA
| | - Jens C Pruessner
- McGill Centre for Studies in Aging, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Canada; Department of Psychology, McGill University, Canada
| | - Charan Ranganath
- Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, USA; Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, USA
| | - Naftali Raz
- Institute of Gerontology, Wayne State University, USA; Psychology Department, Wayne State University, USA
| | - Margaret L Schlichting
- Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, USA; Center for Learning and Memory, The University of Texas at Austin, USA
| | - Dorothee Schoemaker
- McGill Centre for Studies in Aging, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Canada; Department of Psychology, McGill University, Canada
| | - Sachi Singh
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, USA
| | - Craig E L Stark
- Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, University of California, Irvine, USA
| | - Nanthia Suthana
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, Los Angeles, USA
| | | | - Marta M Turowski
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, USA
| | - Koen Van Leemput
- A.A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, USA; Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
| | - Anthony D Wagner
- Department of Psychology, Stanford University, USA; Neurosciences Program, Stanford University, USA
| | - Lei Wang
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, USA; Department of Radiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, USA
| | - Julie L Winterburn
- Cerebral Imaging Centre, Douglas Mental Health University Institute, McGill University, Canada
| | - Laura E M Wisse
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Michael A Yassa
- Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, University of California, Irvine, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|