Large-scale network interactions supporting item-context memory formation

Kim, Sung Shin; Voss, Joel L.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210167

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recall of object locations (i.e., source-memory recollection) was also successful and was strongly related to high-confidence object recognition 24 . To test whether the object recalls were from random guess or from true memory, we calculated the correct recall rates out of trials in which subjects chose to answer (i.e., clicking one of four location boxes).…”

Section: Successful Motor and Declarative Learning Motor Learning Wamentioning

confidence: 95%

Bidirectional competitive interactions between motor memory and declarative memory during interleaved learning

Kim

2020

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distinct motor and declarative memory systems are widely thought to compete during memory consolidation and retrieval, yet the nature of their interactions during learning is less clear. Recent studies have suggested motor learning not only depend on implicit motor memory system supporting gradual tuning of responses by feedback but also depend on explicit declarative memory system. However, this competition has been identified when both systems are engaged in learning the same material (motor information), and so competition might be emphasized. We tested whether such competition also occurs when learning involved separate motor memory and declarative information presented distinctly but yet in close temporal proximity. We measured behavioral and brain-activity correlates of motor-declarative competition during learning using a novel task with interleaved motoradaptation and declarative-learning demands. Despite unrelated motor versus declarative information and temporal segregation, motor learning interfered with declarative learning and declarative learning interfered with motor learning. This reciprocal competition was tightly coupled to corresponding reductions of fMRI activity in motor versus declarative learning systems. These findings suggest that distinct motor and declarative learning systems compete even when they are engaged by systemspecific demands in close temporal proximity during memory formation.

show abstract

Section: Successful Motor and Declarative Learning Motor Learning Wamentioning

confidence: 95%

Bidirectional competitive interactions between motor memory and declarative memory during interleaved learning

Kim

2020

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recall of object locations was also successful and was strongly related to high-confidence object recognition 35 . Object-location recall rates were significantly higher than the chance level of 0.25 (Figure 2C) when subjects recognized objects with high confidence, (0.66±0.040; T (22) = 10.28, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 2.14) and low confidence (0.40±0.045; T (21) = 3.45, p < 0.005, Cohen’s d = 0.74).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Competitive interactions between motor and episodic memory systems during interleaved learning

Kim

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distinct motor and episodic memory systems are widely thought to compete during memory consolidation and retrieval, yet the nature of their interactions during learning is less clear. Motor learning is thought to depend on contributions from both systems, with the episodic system supporting rapid updating and the motor system supporting gradual tuning of responses by feedback. However, this competition has been identified when both systems are engaged in learning the same material (motor information), and so competition might be emphasized. We tested whether such competition also occurs when learning involved separate episodic-memory and motor information presented distinctly but yet in close temporal proximity. We measured behavioral and brain-activity correlates of motor-episodic competition during learning using a novel task with interleaved motor-adaptation and episodic-learning demands. Despite unrelated motor versus episodic information and temporal segregation, motor learning interfered with episodic learning and episodic learning interfered with motor learning. This reciprocal competition was tightly coupled to corresponding reductions of fMRI activity in motor versus episodic learning systems. These findings suggest that distinct motor and episodic learning systems compete even when they are engaged by system-specific demands in close temporal proximity during memory formation.Key words: competitive interaction, episodic memory, motor learning, ventromedial prefrontal cortex 6 2. Methods ParticipantsBehavioral and fMRI data were collected from twenty-five right-handed and neurologically healthy subjects (13 females, mean age = 25.7 years, age range = 19 -35 years). Handedness was assessed by a modified version of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (score ≥ 50, for right-handedness 23 ). All participants had normal or correctednormal vision and were eligible for the experiment based on standard MRI safety screening. They gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and were remunerated for their participation. The experimental protocol received approval from Northwestern University Institutional Review Board. Two subjects were excluded for no learning of motor tasks (one falling asleep in the scanner; see results for detailed exclusion criteria). Therefore, twenty-three subjects were included in data analysis (13 females, mean age = 25.7 years, age range = 19 -35 years) Task procedures and experimental designWe designed an interleaved task-based fMRI experiment with motor learning and objectlocation association memory demands. On the beginning of each trial, a round target of 1 degree in visual angle appeared on the right of the screen, 5.8 degrees of visual angle away from the center. Subjects were instructed to manipulate an MRI-compatible tablet pen (Hybridmojo LLC, CA, USA) to move the cursor to the target within 1.5 s after the target onset (maximum movement time). Timed-out trials were considered invalid and excluded from data analysis (0.92 % of all trials). There we...

show abstract

“…Although resting-state fMRI connectivity has proven useful in characterizing the effects 277 of stimulation on brain network function, including to understand memory improvements due to 278 stimulation 19,20,22,33 , the current findings highlight one of the many limitations of resting-state 279 fMRI for this purpose. That is, relationships between resting-state connectivity and network 280 function are not well specified.…”

Section: (Pmn-targeted Versus Pfc-targeted) Via Voxel-wise Linear MIXmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…For instance, effective memory encoding and retrieval is associated with 61 location-specific and task-dependent increases in stimulus-evoked fMRI activity within the 62 network 37-41 . Correspondingly, better memory can be predicted by fMRI connectivity related to 63 specific memory processes, such as recollection 33,35 . In rodents, theta-gamma synchrony in the 64 hippocampus is observed during memory processing, indicating connectivity changes modulated 65 by memory demands 18 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is therefore possible to enhance the task-dependent regulation 29 of hippocampal network connectivity that supports memory processing using noninvasive 30 stimulation. 31 reconfiguration of fMRI connectivity within the PMN and ATN in response to memory 55 processing demands [31][32][33][34][35][36] . Thus, stimulation might need to produce task-dependent and location-56 specific, rather than nonspecific, increases in hippocampal-cortical network connectivity in order 57 to benefit memory.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Increased task-dependent functional connectivity by stimulation of the hippocampal network predicts memory enhancement

Warren¹,

Hermiller²,

Nilakantan³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

16Successful episodic memory involves dynamic increases in the coordination of activity 17 across distributed hippocampal networks, including the posterior-medial network (PMN) and the 18 anterior-temporal network (ATN). We tested whether this up-regulation of functional 19 connectivity during memory processing can be enhanced within hippocampal networks by 20 noninvasive stimulation, and whether such task-dependent connectivity enhancement predicts 21 episodic memory improvement. Participants received stimulation targeting either the PMN or an 22 out-of-network control location. We compared the effects of stimulation on fMRI connectivity 23 measured during an autobiographical memory retrieval task versus during rest within the PMN 24 and the ATN. PMN-targeted stimulation significantly increased connectivity during memory 25 retrieval versus rest within the PMN. This effect was not observed in the ATN, or in either 26 network due to control out-of-network stimulation. Task-dependent increases in connectivity due 27 to PMN-targeted stimulation within the medial temporal lobe predicted improved performance of 28 a separate episodic memory test. It is therefore possible to enhance the task-dependent regulation 29 of hippocampal network connectivity that supports memory processing using noninvasive 30 stimulation. 31 reconfiguration of fMRI connectivity within the PMN and ATN in response to memory 55 processing demands [31][32][33][34][35][36] . Thus, stimulation might need to produce task-dependent and location-56 specific, rather than nonspecific, increases in hippocampal-cortical network connectivity in order 57 to benefit memory. 58Indeed, several lines of evidence suggest that memory enhancement should require that 59 hippocampal-cortical network fMRI connectivity increases occur in response to memory 60 processing demands. For instance, effective memory encoding and retrieval is associated with 61 location-specific and task-dependent increases in stimulus-evoked fMRI activity within the 62 network 37-41 . Correspondingly, better memory can be predicted by fMRI connectivity related to 63 specific memory processes, such as recollection 33,35 . In rodents, theta-gamma synchrony in the 64 hippocampus is observed during memory processing, indicating connectivity changes modulated 65 by memory demands 18 . Pharmacological disruption of hippocampal theta-gamma synchrony and 66 memory can be rescued by theta-burst stimulation of the fornix, indicating that this marker of 67 connectivity is critical for memory 18 . Furthermore, amnestic states, such as those caused by 68 hippocampal lesions, are associated not only with reduced hippocampal-cortical network 69 connectivity, but also with increased connectivity between the hippocampal network and other 70 networks 29,30 , suggesting that nonspecific increases in connectivity can be problematic. 71Demonstration that stimulation can affect memory task-dependent changes in connectivity within 72 specific targeted portions of the hippocampal-cortical network therefore is cruc...

show abstract

Large-scale network interactions supporting item-context memory formation

Cited by 6 publications

References 54 publications

Bidirectional competitive interactions between motor memory and declarative memory during interleaved learning

Bidirectional competitive interactions between motor memory and declarative memory during interleaved learning

Competitive interactions between motor and episodic memory systems during interleaved learning

Increased task-dependent functional connectivity by stimulation of the hippocampal network predicts memory enhancement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About