Literature DB >> 34413205

Perceptual and Semantic Representations at Encoding Contribute to True and False Recognition of Objects.

Loris Naspi1, Paul Hoffman2, Barry Devereux3, Alexa M Morcom4.   

Abstract

When encoding new episodic memories, visual and semantic processing is proposed to make distinct contributions to accurate memory and memory distortions. Here, we used fMRI and preregistered representational similarity analysis to uncover the representations that predict true and false recognition of unfamiliar objects. Two semantic models captured coarse-grained taxonomic categories and specific object features, respectively, while two perceptual models embodied low-level visual properties. Twenty-eight female and male participants encoded images of objects during fMRI scanning, and later had to discriminate studied objects from similar lures and novel objects in a recognition memory test. Both perceptual and semantic models predicted true memory. When studied objects were later identified correctly, neural patterns corresponded to low-level visual representations of these object images in the early visual cortex, lingual, and fusiform gyri. In a similar fashion, alignment of neural patterns with fine-grained semantic feature representations in the fusiform gyrus also predicted true recognition. However, emphasis on coarser taxonomic representations predicted forgetting more anteriorly in the anterior ventral temporal cortex, left inferior frontal gyrus and, in an exploratory analysis, left perirhinal cortex. In contrast, false recognition of similar lure objects was associated with weaker visual analysis posteriorly in early visual and left occipitotemporal cortex. The results implicate multiple perceptual and semantic representations in successful memory encoding and suggest that fine-grained semantic as well as visual analysis contributes to accurate later recognition, while processing visual image detail is critical for avoiding false recognition errors.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT People are able to store detailed memories of many similar objects. We offer new insights into the encoding of these specific memories by combining fMRI with explicit models of how image properties and object knowledge are represented in the brain. When people processed fine-grained visual properties in occipital and posterior temporal cortex, they were more likely to recognize the objects later and less likely to falsely recognize similar objects. In contrast, while object-specific feature representations in fusiform gyrus predicted accurate memory, coarse-grained categorical representations in frontal and temporal regions predicted forgetting. The data provide the first direct tests of theoretical assumptions about encoding true and false memories, suggesting that semantic representations contribute to specific memories as well as errors.
Copyright © 2021 the authors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  episodic memory; fMRI; false memory; memory encoding; recognition memory; representational similarity analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34413205      PMCID: PMC8496201          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0677-21.2021

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


  62 in total

Review 1.  Recognition memory: what are the roles of the perirhinal cortex and hippocampus?

Authors:  M W Brown; J P Aggleton
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 34.870

2.  Prefrontal-temporal circuitry for episodic encoding and subsequent memory.

Authors:  B A Kirchhoff; A D Wagner; A Maril; C E Stern
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2000-08-15       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  The hippocampal formation participates in novel picture encoding: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  C E Stern; S Corkin; R G González; A R Guimaraes; J R Baker; P J Jennings; C A Carr; R M Sugiura; V Vedantham; B R Rosen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1996-08-06       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  FMRI Clustering in AFNI: False-Positive Rates Redux.

Authors:  Robert W Cox; Gang Chen; Daniel R Glen; Richard C Reynolds; Paul A Taylor
Journal:  Brain Connect       Date:  2017-04

5.  Semantic representations in the temporal pole predict false memories.

Authors:  Martin J Chadwick; Raeesa S Anjum; Dharshan Kumaran; Daniel L Schacter; Hugo J Spiers; Demis Hassabis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Learning 10,000 pictures.

Authors:  L Standing
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol       Date:  1973-05       Impact factor: 2.143

7.  Objects and categories: feature statistics and object processing in the ventral stream.

Authors:  Lorraine K Tyler; Shannon Chiu; Jie Zhuang; Billi Randall; Barry J Devereux; Paul Wright; Alex Clarke; Kirsten I Taylor
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 3.225

8.  Distinguishing the neural correlates of episodic memory encoding and semantic memory retrieval.

Authors:  Steven E Prince; Takashi Tsukiura; Roberto Cabeza
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2007-02

9.  Multiple dimensions of semantic and perceptual similarity contribute to mnemonic discrimination for pictures.

Authors:  Loris Naspi; Paul Hoffman; Barry Devereux; Tobias Thejll-Madsen; Leonidas A A Doumas; Alexa Morcom
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2021-09-02       Impact factor: 3.051

10.  Machine learning for neuroimaging with scikit-learn.

Authors:  Alexandre Abraham; Fabian Pedregosa; Michael Eickenberg; Philippe Gervais; Andreas Mueller; Jean Kossaifi; Alexandre Gramfort; Bertrand Thirion; Gaël Varoquaux
Journal:  Front Neuroinform       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 4.081

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.