Literature DB >> 33239402

Memory Reactivation during Learning Simultaneously Promotes Dentate Gyrus/CA2,3 Pattern Differentiation and CA1 Memory Integration.

Robert J Molitor1,2, Katherine R Sherrill2, Neal W Morton2, Alexandra A Miller3, Alison R Preston4,2,3.   

Abstract

Events that overlap with previous experience may trigger reactivation of existing memories. However, such reactivation may have different representational consequences within the hippocampal circuit. Computational theories of hippocampal function suggest that dentate gyrus and CA2,3 (DG/CA2,3) are biased to differentiate highly similar memories, whereas CA1 may integrate related events by representing them with overlapping neural codes. Here, we tested whether the formation of differentiated or integrated representations in hippocampal subfields depends on the strength of memory reactivation during learning. Human participants of both sexes learned associations (AB pairs, either face-shape or scene-shape), and then underwent fMRI scanning while they encoded overlapping associations (BC shape-object pairs). Both before and after learning, participants were also scanned while viewing indirectly related elements of the overlapping memories (A and C images) in isolation. We used multivariate pattern analyses to measure reactivation of initial pair memories (A items) during overlapping pair (BC) learning, as well as learning-related representational change for indirectly related memory elements in hippocampal subfields. When prior memories were strongly reactivated during overlapping pair encoding, DG/CA2,3 and subiculum representations for indirectly related images (A and C) became less similar, consistent with pattern differentiation. Simultaneously, memory reactivation during new learning promoted integration in CA1, where representations for indirectly related memory elements became more similar after learning. Furthermore, memory reactivation and subiculum representation predicted faster and more accurate inference (AC) decisions. These data show that reactivation of related memories during new learning leads to dissociable coding strategies in hippocampal subfields, in line with computational theories.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT The flexibility of episodic memory allows us to remember both the details that differentiate similar events and the commonalities among them. Here, we tested how reactivation of past experience during new learning promotes formation of neural representations that might serve these two memory functions. We found that memory reactivation during learning promoted formation of differentiated representations for overlapping memories in the dentate gyrus/CA2,3 and subiculum subfields of the hippocampus, while simultaneously leading to the formation of integrated representations of related events in subfield CA1 Furthermore, memory reactivation and subiculum representation predicted success when inferring indirect relationships among events. These findings indicate that memory reactivation is an important learning signal that influences how overlapping events are represented within the hippocampal circuit.
Copyright © 2021 the authors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  associative memory; episodic memory; high-resolution fMRI; hippocampal subfield; pattern separation

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33239402      PMCID: PMC7842747          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0394-20.2020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  52 in total

Review 1.  The subiculum: a review of form, physiology and function.

Authors:  S M O'Mara; S Commins; M Anderson; J Gigg
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 11.685

2.  Distinct pattern separation related transfer functions in human CA3/dentate and CA1 revealed using high-resolution fMRI and variable mnemonic similarity.

Authors:  Joyce W Lacy; Michael A Yassa; Shauna M Stark; L Tugan Muftuler; Craig E L Stark
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 2.460

3.  Fidelity of neural reactivation reveals competition between memories.

Authors:  Brice A Kuhl; Jesse Rissman; Marvin M Chun; Anthony D Wagner
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-03-21       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Performance of semi-automated hippocampal subfield segmentation methods across ages in a pediatric sample.

Authors:  Margaret L Schlichting; Michael L Mack; Katharine F Guarino; Alison R Preston
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  A reproducible evaluation of ANTs similarity metric performance in brain image registration.

Authors:  Brian B Avants; Nicholas J Tustison; Gang Song; Philip A Cook; Arno Klein; James C Gee
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  Feature diagnosticity affects representations of novel and familiar objects.

Authors:  Nina S Hsu; Margaret L Schlichting; Sharon L Thompson-Schill
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Shaping of object representations in the human medial temporal lobe based on temporal regularities.

Authors:  Anna C Schapiro; Lauren V Kustner; Nicholas B Turk-Browne
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 10.834

8.  Bayesian inference with Stan: A tutorial on adding custom distributions.

Authors:  Jeffrey Annis; Brent J Miller; Thomas J Palmeri
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2017-06

9.  Changes in pattern completion--a key mechanism to explain age-related recognition memory deficits?

Authors:  Paula Vieweg; Matthias Stangl; Lorelei R Howard; Thomas Wolbers
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2014-12-29       Impact factor: 4.027

10.  Representational similarity analysis - connecting the branches of systems neuroscience.

Authors:  Nikolaus Kriegeskorte; Marieke Mur; Peter Bandettini
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2008-11-24
View more
  9 in total

1.  Semantic relatedness retroactively boosts memory and promotes memory interdependence across episodes.

Authors:  James W Antony; America Romero; Anthony H Vierra; Rebecca S Luenser; Robert D Hawkins; Kelly A Bennion
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 8.713

2.  Developmental differences in memory reactivation relate to encoding and inference in the human brain.

Authors:  Margaret L Schlichting; Katharine F Guarino; Hannah E Roome; Alison R Preston
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2021-11-15

3.  Self-derivation of new knowledge through memory integration varies as a function of prior knowledge.

Authors:  Nicole L Varga; Lucy Cronin-Golomb; Patricia J Bauer
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2022-05-12

4.  Volumetric Analysis of Amygdala and Hippocampal Subfields for Infants with Autism.

Authors:  Guannan Li; Meng-Hsiang Chen; Gang Li; Di Wu; Chunfeng Lian; Quansen Sun; R Jarrett Rushmore; Li Wang
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2022-04-07

Review 5.  Dimensions and mechanisms of memory organization.

Authors:  André F de Sousa; Ananya Chowdhury; Alcino J Silva
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 18.688

6.  Increasing stimulus similarity drives nonmonotonic representational change in hippocampus.

Authors:  Jeffrey Wammes; Kenneth A Norman; Nicholas Turk-Browne
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 8.140

7.  Generalization and False Memory in an Acquired Equivalence Paradigm: The Influence of Physical Resemblance Across Related Episodes.

Authors:  Caitlin R Bowman; Maria-Alejandra de Araujo Sanchez; William Hou; Sarina Rubin; Dagmar Zeithamova
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-08-20

8.  Delta-modulated cortical alpha oscillations support new knowledge generation through memory integration.

Authors:  Nicole L Varga; Joseph R Manns
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2021-09-23       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  Dopamine controls whether new declarative information updates reactivated memories through reconsolidation.

Authors:  María Carolina Gonzalez; Janine I Rossato; Andressa Radiske; Lia R M Bevilaqua; Martín Cammarota
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 11.205

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.