Maxwell B Merkow1, John F Burke2, Ashwin G Ramayya2, Ashwini D Sharan3, Michael R Sperling4, Michael J Kahana5. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States. Electronic address: mbmerkow@bayareaneuro.com. 2. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, Thomas Jefferson University, 19107, United States. 4. Department of Neurology, Thomas Jefferson University, 19107, United States. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, 19104, United States. Electronic address: Kahana@psych.upenn.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Direct electrical stimulation applied to the human medial temporal lobe (MTL) typically disrupts performance on memory tasks, however, the mechanism underlying this effect is not known. OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of MTL stimulation on memory performance. METHODS: We studied the effects of MTL stimulation on memory in five patients undergoing invasive electrocorticographic monitoring during various phases of a memory task (encoding, distractor, recall). RESULTS: We found that MTL stimulation disrupted memory performance in a timing-dependent manner; we observed greater forgetting when applying stimulation during the delay between encoding and recall, compared to when it was applied during encoding or recall. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that recall is most dependent on the MTL between learning and retrieval.
BACKGROUND: Direct electrical stimulation applied to the human medial temporal lobe (MTL) typically disrupts performance on memory tasks, however, the mechanism underlying this effect is not known. OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of MTL stimulation on memory performance. METHODS: We studied the effects of MTL stimulation on memory in five patients undergoing invasive electrocorticographic monitoring during various phases of a memory task (encoding, distractor, recall). RESULTS: We found that MTL stimulation disrupted memory performance in a timing-dependent manner; we observed greater forgetting when applying stimulation during the delay between encoding and recall, compared to when it was applied during encoding or recall. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that recall is most dependent on the MTL between learning and retrieval.
Authors: Nikolai Axmacher; Florian Mormann; Guillén Fernández; Michael X Cohen; Christian E Elger; Juergen Fell Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2007-07-18 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Karen Blackmon; William B Barr; Chris Morrison; William MacAllister; Michelle Kruse; Christina Pressl; Xiuyuan Wang; Patricia Dugan; Anli A Liu; Eric Halgren; Orrin Devinsky; Thomas Thesen Journal: Epilepsy Behav Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 2.937
Authors: Emily A Mankin; Zahra M Aghajan; Peter Schuette; Michelle E Tran; Natalia Tchemodanov; Ali Titiz; Güldamla Kalender; Dawn Eliashiv; John Stern; Shennan A Weiss; Dylan Kirsch; Barbara Knowlton; Itzhak Fried; Nanthia Suthana Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Youssef Ezzyat; Paul A Wanda; Deborah F Levy; Allison Kadel; Ada Aka; Isaac Pedisich; Michael R Sperling; Ashwini D Sharan; Bradley C Lega; Alexis Burks; Robert E Gross; Cory S Inman; Barbara C Jobst; Mark A Gorenstein; Kathryn A Davis; Gregory A Worrell; Michal T Kucewicz; Joel M Stein; Richard Gorniak; Sandhitsu R Das; Daniel S Rizzuto; Michael J Kahana Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Vivek P Buch; Andrew G Richardson; Cameron Brandon; Jennifer Stiso; Monica N Khattak; Danielle S Bassett; Timothy H Lucas Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 4.677