Parallel neural networks for learning sequential procedures

Hikosaka, Okihide; Nakahara, Hiroyuki; Rand, Miya K.; Sakai, Katsuyuki; Lu, Xiaofeng; Nakamura, Kae; Miyachi, Shigehiro; Doya, Kenji

doi:10.1016/s0166-2236(99)01439-3

Cited by 692 publications

(655 citation statements)

References 77 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

570

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As with navigation tasks, there are multiple memory systems [78,120,121,140,158,159,213]. It is the contention of this paper that the hippocampal involvement in memory tasks corresponds to the non-spatial correlates of the hippocampal pyramidal cells.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

The hippocampal debate: are we asking the right questions?

Redish

2001

Behavioural Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For years, the debate has been: 'Is the hippocampus the cognitive map?' or 'Is the hippocampus the core of memory?' These two hypotheses derived their original power from two key experiments-the cognitive map theory from the remarkable spatial correlates seen in recordings of hippocampal pyramidal cells and the memory theory from the profound amnesias seen in the patient H.M. Both of these key experiments have been reinterpreted over the years: hippocampal cells are correlated with much more than place and H.M. is missing much more than just his hippocampus. However, both theories are still debated today. The hippocampus clearly plays a role in both navigation and memory processing. The question that must be addressed is rather: 'What is the role played by the hippocampus in the navigation and memory systems?' By looking at the navigation system as a whole, one can identify the major role played by the hippocampus as correcting for accumulation errors that occur within idiothetic navigation systems. This is most clearly experimentally evident as reorientation when an animal is lost. Carrying this over to a more general process, this becomes a role of recalling a context, bridging a contextual gap, or, in other words, it becomes a form of recognition memory. I will review recent experimental data which seems to support this theory over the more general spatial or memory theories traditionally applied to hippocampus.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

The hippocampal debate: are we asking the right questions?

Redish

2001

Behavioural Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The procedural system is composed of a network of several interconnected brain structures (De Renzi, 1989;Heilman et al, 1997;Hikosaka et al, 2000;Jenkins et al, 1994;Mishkin et al, 1984;Rizzolatti et al, 2000; Schacter and Tulving, 1994;Squire and Zola, 1996). Within the cerebrum, the system depends especially on structures in the left hemisphere (De Renzi, 1989;Heilman et al, 1997;Schluter et al, 2001).…”

Section: The Procedural Memory Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note that we use the term "procedural memory system" to refer only to one type of implicit, non-declarative, memory system (Squire and Knowlton, 2000), not all non-declarative or implicit memory systems. Moreover, we use the term to refer to the entire system involved in the learning, representation and use of procedural memories, not just to those parts of the system underlying the acquisition of new procedural knowledge (also see Ullman, in press-a).The procedural system is composed of a network of several interconnected brain structures (De Renzi, 1989;Heilman et al, 1997;Hikosaka et al, 2000;Jenkins et al, 1994;Mishkin et al, 1984;Rizzolatti et al, 2000; Schacter and Tulving, 1994;Squire and Zola, 1996). Within the cerebrum, the system depends especially on structures in the left hemisphere (De Renzi, 1989;Heilman et al, 1997;Schluter et al, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Specific Language Impairment is not Specific to Language: the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis

Ullman

Pierpont

2005

Cortex

677

751

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Specific Language Impairment (SLI) has been explained by two broad classes of hypotheses, which posit either a deficit specific to grammar, or a non-linguistic processing impairment. Here we advance an alternative perspective. According to the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis (PDH), SLI can be largely explained by the abnormal development of brain structures that constitute the procedural memory system. This system, which is composed of a network of inter-connected structures rooted in frontal/basal-ganglia circuits, subserves the learning and execution of motor and cognitive skills.Crucially, recent evidence also implicates this system in important aspects of grammar. The PDH posits that a significant proportion of individuals with SLI suffer from abnormalities of this brain network, leading to impairments of the linguistic and non-linguistic functions that depend on it. In contrast, functions such as lexical and declarative memory, which depend on other brain structures, are expected to remain largely spared. Evidence from an in-depth retrospective examination of the literature is presented. It is argued that the data support the predictions of the PDH, and particularly implicate Broca's area within frontal cortex, and the caudate nucleus within the basal ganglia. Finally, broader implications are discussed, and predictions for future research are presented. It is argued that the PDH forms the basis of a novel and potentially productive perspective on SLI. INTRODUCTIONSpecific Language Impairment (SLI) is generally defined as a developmental disorder of language in the absence of frank neurological damage, hearing deficits, severe environmental deprivation, or mental retardation (for diagnostic definitions and prevalence of SLI, see Bishop, 1992;Leonard, 1998;Tomblin et al., 1997). Other terms have also been used to label such children, including developmental dysphasia, language impairment, language learning disability, developmental language disorder, delayed speech and deviant language (Leonard, 1998;Ahmed et al., 2001). Several factors have complicated attempts to provide a unified theory of SLI, or even of subgroups of SLI. First, despite the standard use of exclusionary criteria to diagnose SLI, the disorder is clearly not limited to language.Rather the linguistic impairments co-occur with a number of non-linguistic deficits, including impairments of motor skills and working memory, and with other disorders, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Hill, 2001;Leonard, 1998;Tirosh and Cohen, 1998). Second, even though SLI must be a consequence of some sort of neural dysfunction, the neural correlates of the disorder have been largely ignored. This potentially valuable information could provide important constraints on explanatory accounts of the disorder. Third, SLI is a classification that is quite heterogeneous (Leonard, 1998;Stromswold, 2000). Surveys document variation within and across subgroups in the particular aspects of language that are affected and in the types of co-occurring no...

show abstract

“…Each of these components is encoded within distinct neural circuits (Hikosaka et al 1999;Hikosaka et al 2002). A particularly vivid example of this is provided by the distinction between information represented within allocentric co-ordinates -in which the location of objects are coded in relation on one another -or egocentric co-ordinates -in which object location is centred around the body.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After training with one hand, the goal and movement-based components can be distinguished by probing skill with the untrained hand (Figure 1, (Hikosaka et al 1999;Grafton et al 2002;Japikse et al 2003;Verwey and Wright 2004;Verwey and Clegg 2005)). By switching from the right to the left hand, the same finger is no longer associated with the same response.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor sequence consolidation: constrained by critical time windows or competing components

Cohen

Robertson

2006

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Skill improvements may develop between practice sessions during memory consolidation. Skill enhancement within an egocentric coordinate frame develops over wake, whereas skill enhancement in an allocentric coordinate frame develops over a night of sleep. We tested whether both types of improvement could develop over two different 24-hr intervals: 8am to 8am or from 8pm to 8pm. We found that for each 24 hour interval, only one type of skill improvement was seen. Despite passing through wake and a night of sleep participants only showed skill improvements commensurate with either a night of sleep or a day awake. The nature of the off-line skill enhancement was determined by when consolidation occurred within the normal sleep-wake cycle. We conclude that motor sequence consolidation is constrained either by having critical time windows or by a competitive interaction in which improvements within one coordinate frame actively block improvements from developing in the alternative coordinate frame.

show abstract

Parallel neural networks for learning sequential procedures

Cited by 692 publications

References 77 publications

The hippocampal debate: are we asking the right questions?

The hippocampal debate: are we asking the right questions?

Specific Language Impairment is not Specific to Language: the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis

Motor sequence consolidation: constrained by critical time windows or competing components

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About