Separate but interacting recognition memory systems for different senses: The role of the rat perirhinal cortex

Abstract

Two different models (convergent and parallel) potentially describe how recognition memory, the ability to detect the re-occurrence of a stimulus, is organized across different senses. To contrast these two models, rats with or without perirhinal cortex lesions were compared across various conditions that controlled available information from specific sensory modalities. Intact rats not only showed visual, tactile, and olfactory recognition, but also overcame changes in the types of sensory information available between object sampling and subsequent object recognition, e.g., between sampling in the light and recognition in the dark, or vice versa. Perirhinal lesions severely impaired object recognition whenever visual cues were available, but spared olfactory recognition and tactile-based object recognition when tested in the dark. The perirhinal lesions also blocked the ability to recognize an object sampled in the light and then tested for recognition in the dark, or vice versa. The findings reveal parallel recognition systems for different senses reliant on distinct brain areas, e.g., perirhinal cortex for vision, but also show that: (1) recognition memory for multisensory stimuli involves competition between sensory systems and (2) perirhinal cortex lesions produce a bias to rely on vision, despite the presence of intact recognition memory systems serving other senses.

Subcortical connections of the perirhinal, postrhinal, and entorhinal cortices of the rat. II. efferents

“…The strong connectivity reinforces the role both the amygdala and the PER have in emotional processing (Janak and Tye, 2015; Kent and Brown, 2012; LeDoux, 1992). The PER connection to olfactory subcortical nuclei is consistent with the findings from the cortical connectivity (Agster and Burwell, 2009) and highlight the multisensory nature of stimulus processing that occurs in the PER (Albasser et al, 2011; Burwell, 2001). …”

“…A more recent framework, however, assigns unique cognitive roles for the individual cortices (Eichenbaum and Lipton, 2008; Jarrard et al, 2004; Murray et al, 2007). Within this conceptual framework the PER is necessary for object recognition (Albasser et al, 2011; Bussey et al, 2003; Kealy and Commins, 2011; Meunier et al, 1993; Tu et al, 2011), the POR monitors the environment or context (Burwell and Hafeman, 2003; Furtak et al, 2012; Norman and Eacott, 2005), and the EC is involved in spatial/working memory (Brun et al, 2008; McGaughy et al, 2005; Steffenach et al, 2005; Stensola et al, 2012). This framework is complemented by findings that the PER, POR, and EC exhibit distinctly different connections with neocortical regions (Agster and Burwell, 2009; Burwell and Amaral, 1998a; Burwell and Amaral, 1998b; Lavenex et al, 2004; Witter et al, 1989).…”

Impact of CRFR1 Ablation on Amyloid-β Production and Accumulation in a Mouse Model of Alzheimer's Disease

“…Some tests of memory may be more sensitive than others to the impact of Aβ along the rhinal and longitudinal fissures. For example, stress insults to the perirhinal cortex have been shown to impact tests of novel object recognition [67, 68]. Likewise, conditioned place aversion has been shown to be dependent on the insular and cingulate cortices [69, 70].…”

Dysgranular retrosplenial cortex lesions in rats disrupt cross-modal object recognition

“…In addition to the perirhinal cortex, which has been implicated in selective aspects of cross-modal recognition in animal studies (Goulet and Murray 2001;Winters and Reid 2010;Albasser et al 2011), human imaging studies have implicated the anterior cingulate cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in tactile to visual cross-modal recognition (Banati et al 2000) along with the insula (Holdstock et al 2009). It is notable that many of these areas are closely connected with the retrosplenial cortex (Deacon et al 1983;Amaral 2003, 2007).…”