| Literature DB >> 34739173 |
Tom Willems1, Katharina Henke1.
Abstract
The investigation of the physical traces of memories (engrams) has made significant progress in the last decade due to optogenetics and fluorescent cell tagging applied in rodents. Engram cells were identified. The ablation of engram cells led to the loss of the associated memory, silent memories were reactivated, and artificial memories were implanted in the brain. Human engram research lags behind engram research in rodents due to methodological and ethical constraints. However, advances in multivariate analysis techniques of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data and machine learning algorithms allowed the identification of stable engram patterns in humans. In addition, MRI scanners with an ultrahigh field strength of 7 Tesla (T) have left their prototype state and became more common around the world to assist human engram research. Although most engram research in humans is still being performed with a field strength of 3T, fMRI at 7T will push engram research. Here, we summarize the current state and findings of human engram research and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of applying 7 versus 3T fMRI to image human memory traces.Entities:
Keywords: 7T; engram; hippocampus; humans; magnetic resonance imaging; memory
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34739173 PMCID: PMC9298259 DOI: 10.1002/hipo.23391
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hippocampus ISSN: 1050-9631 Impact factor: 3.753
FIGURE 1UHF MRI scanners around the world. Data from layerfMRI blog (Huber, 2021)
FIGURE 2Reprinted with permission from: N. Theysohn et al., 2013. (a) Field strength comparison: A two‐sample t‐test (contrast 7 vs. 3T) shows a plus in BOLD sensitivity in bilateral hippocampus at 7T for functional activation related to associative memory encoding. Significantly higher activation in the hippocampus bilaterally. (b) Box plot comparison of 3T (right) and 7T (left) datasets. Extracted beta values of parameter estimation show significant higher intensity of the hippocampal activation at 7T (0.7 ± 0.06 at 7T vs. 0.33 ± 0.04 at 3T)
Overview over 7T fMRI memory studies, paradigm and scanning parameters
| Authors |
| TR (ms) | TE (ms) | Voxel size (mm) | Slices | FOV (mm) | Paradigm | ROI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koster et al. ( | 26 | 2500 | 22 | 0.8 × 0.8 × 0.8 | 28 | 205 × 205 | Inference task (memory integration) | MTL |
| Maass et al. ( | 22 | 2000 | 22 | 0.8 × 0.8 × 0.8 | 28 | 205 × 205 | Visual associative memory | MTL |
| Navarro Schröder et al. ( | 22 | 2756 | 20 | 0.9 × 0.9 × 0.92 | 96 | 210 × 210 | Spatial navigation task | MTL (EC) |
| Shah et al. ( | 13 | 1000 | 24 | 2 × 2 × 2 | 64 | 192 × 192 | Resting state, functional connectivity | MTL |
| Sladky et al. ( | 38 | 1400 | 23 | 1.5 × 1.5 × 1 | 78 | / | Emotional face viewing | Amygdala, BNST |
| Suthana, Donix, et al. ( | 14 | 3000 | 19 | 1 × 1 × 2 | 21 | 200 × 200 | Visual associative memory | HC |
| Theysohn et al. ( | 28 | 2050 | 25 | 2.5 × 2.5 × 2 | 50 | 230 × 230 | Visual associative memory | MTL |
| Barron et al. ( | 22 | 1512 | 20 | 1.5 × 1.5 × 1.5 | 50 | 192 × 192 | Inference task (memory integration) | MTL |
| Hodgetts et al. ( | 25 | 2000 | 25 | 1.2 × 1.2 × 1.2 | 30 | 192 × 192 | Perceptual oddity task, discrimination | HC and subiculum |
| Berron et al. ( | 20 | 2000 | 22 | 0.8 × 0.8 × 0.8 | 28 | 205 × 205 | Scene discrimination | Hippocampus |
| Finn et al. ( | 15 | 2500 | 27 | 0.75 × 0.75 × 0.99 | / | 130 × 130 | Working memory, delayed response task | DLPFC |
| Lawrence et al. ( | 21 | 3408 | 28 | 0.8 × 0.8 × 0.8 | / | 192 × 192 | Visual working memory task | V1 |
| Margalit et al. ( | 7 | 2200 | 22.4 | 0.8 × 0.8 × 0.8 | 84 | 160 × 129.6 | Oddball detection task, visual stimuli | VTC |
| Murphy et al. ( | 30 | 3000 | 28 | 0.85 × 0.85 × 1.5 | 37 | / | Emotional face matching task | Amygdala |
| Jacobs et al. ( | 27 | 2000 | 19 | 1.25 × 1.25 × 1.25 | 50 | / | Emotional face matching task | LC, amygdala, HC |
Note: While all studies were memory related, not all of them specifically looked for engrams.
Abbreviations: Amy: amygdala; BNST, bed nucleus of the Stria terminalis; DLPFC, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; EC, entorhinal cortex; FOV, field of view; HC, hippocampus; LC, locus coeruleus; MTL, medial temporal lobe; N, number of participants; ROI: region of interest, that is, investigated brain area; Sub, subiculum; V1, primary visual cortex; TE, echo time; TR, repetition time.
FIGURE 3Reprinted with permission from: Hodgetts et al., 2017. (a) Hippocampal subfields (CA1, CA2, CA3, DG, and subiculum) were manually segmented on subjects' ultra‐high‐resolution T2(star)‐weighted images obtained during a visual oddity task: Selecting an oddball image from a group of three images, for example, two images of the same object from different viewpoints and a third target image of a different object). Six representative coronal slices of an individual subject's segmentation are shown (left hemisphere; 1, anterior; 6, posterior). Regions CA2 and CA3 were later concatenated as their small size precluded accurate functional localization at our coarser functional resolution of 1.2 mm isotropic. (b) Mean percentage signal change plots for correct scene (S), face (F), and object (O) judgments (relative to size baseline) for each hippocampal subfield ROI. Error bars represent SE