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 Tesla and 7 Tesla. 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.

Intense debate surrounds the role of medial temporal lobe (MTL) structures in recognition memory. Using high-resolution fMRI and analyses of pattern similarity in humans, we examined the encoding computations subserved by MTL subregions. Specifically, we tested the theory that MTL cortex supports memory by encoding overlapping representations, whereas hippocampus supports memory by encoding pattern-separated representations. Consistent with this view, the relationship between encoding pattern similarity and subsequent memory dissociated MTL cortex and hippocampus: later memory was predicted by greater across-item pattern similarity in perirhinal cortex and in parahippocampal cortex, but greater pattern distinctiveness in hippocampus. Additionally, by comparing neural patterns elicited by individual stimuli irrespective of subsequent memory, we found that perirhinal cortex and parahippocampal cortex exhibited differential content sensitivity for multiple stimulus categories, whereas hippocampus failed to demonstrate content sensitivity. These data provide novel evidence that complementary MTL encoding computations subserve declarative memory.

Mental representation of the future is a fundamental component of goal-directed behavior. Computational and animal models highlight prospective spatial coding in the hippocampus, mediated by interactions with the prefrontal cortex, as a putative mechanism for simulating future events. Using whole-brain high-resolution functional magnetic resonance imaging and multi-voxel pattern classification, we tested whether the human hippocampus and interrelated cortical structures support prospective representation of navigational goals. Results demonstrated that hippocampal activity patterns code for future goals to which participants subsequently navigate, as well as for intervening locations along the route, consistent with trajectory-specific simulation. The strength of hippocampal goal representations covaried with goal-related coding in the prefrontal, medial temporal, and medial parietal cortex. Collectively, these data indicate that a hippocampal-cortical network supports prospective simulation of navigational events during goal-directed planning.

Multi-voxel pattern analysis (MVPA) has led to major changes in how fMRI data are analyzed and interpreted. Many studies now report both MVPA results and results from standard univariate voxel-wise analysis, often with the goal of drawing different conclusions from each. Because MVPA results can be sensitive to latent multidimensional representations and processes whereas univariate voxel-wise analysis cannot, one conclusion that is often drawn when MVPA and univariate results differ is that the activation patterns underlying MVPA results contain a multidimensional code. In the current study, we conducted simulations to formally test this assumption. Our findings reveal that MVPA tests are sensitive to the magnitude of voxel-level variability in the effect of a condition within subjects, even when the same linear relationship is coded in all voxels. We also find that MVPA is insensitive to subject-level variability in mean activation across an ROI, which is the primary variance component of interest in many standard univariate tests. Together, these results illustrate that differences between MVPA and univariate tests do not afford conclusions about the nature or dimensionality of the neural code. Instead, targeted tests of the informational content and/or dimensionality of activation patterns are critical for drawing strong conclusions about the representational codes that are indicated by significant MVPA results.

The advent of high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has enabled in vivo research in a variety of populations and diseases on the structure and function of hippocampal subfields and subdivisions of the parahippocampal gyrus. Due to the many extant and highly discrepant segmentation protocols, comparing results across studies is difficult. To overcome this barrier, the Hippocampal Subfields Group was formed as an international collaboration with the aim of developing a harmonized protocol for manual segmentation of hippocampal and parahippocampal subregions on high-resolution MRI. In this commentary we discuss the goals for this protocol and the associated key challenges involved in its development. These include differences among existing anatomical reference materials, striking the right balance between reliability of measurements and anatomical validity, and the development of a versatile protocol that can be adopted for the study of populations varying in age and health. The commentary outlines these key challenges, as well as the proposed solution of each, with concrete examples from our working plan. Finally, with two examples, we illustrate how the harmonized protocol, once completed, is expected to impact the field by producing measurements that are quantitatively comparable across labs and by facilitating the synthesis of findings across different studies.