Long Term Memory – Item Encoding and Retrieval Task Name Description Cognitive Construct Validity Neural Construct Reliability Psychometric Animal Model Stage of Research Validity Characteristics The The Relational Encoding and Retrieval The cognitive psychology Several recent studies The test-retest Individuals with The kinds of There is evidence Relational (REaR) paradigm involves two tasks literature (Blumenfeld & have now reliability and the schizophrenia typically relational that this specific task Encoding previously used in studies of memory in Ranganath, 2006; B. H. demonstrated that effects of repeated show significant encoding elicits deficits in and Retrieval schizophrenia. The first is an item- Bower, 1970; Hunt & Einsten, DLPFC activation performance on impairments on long-term processes that are schizophrenia. (REaR) Task specific encoding task that was shown 1981) distinguishes between during relational the REaR task are memory tests, but the manipulated in the to elicit equivalent levels of item two types of memory encoding encoding reliably not known and will deficits can be REaR paradigm We need to assess memory between schizophrenia strategies. Common item- predicts successful need to be substantially attenuated if have not been psychometric patients and controls . The second is a specific encoding strategies LTM (Blumenfeld & established an item-specific encoding extensively characteristics such relational encoding task (Blumenfeld & involve making a semantic Ranganath, 2006). through future strategy is provided during investigated in as test-retest Ranganath, 2006) that has been shown decision about an item (e.g., However, DLPFC study. study. This has been most animal models, in reliability, practice to engage prefrontal relational control “pleasant”/”unpleasant”, activity is generally not recently demonstrated part because it is effects, and mechanisms associated with increased “abstract”/”concrete”), correlated with through a series of studies difficult to directly ceiling/floor effects long-term memory performance. During whereas relational encoding successful item- (Bonner-Jackson, Haut, manipulate for this task. the encoding phase, participants will be strategies include imagining specific encoding Csernansky, & Barch, encoding presented with two types of trials in two or more items interacting, (Blumenfeld & 2005) (Ragland et al., strategies in non- We need to study separate blocks. Trials will be blocked or linking two or more words in Ranganath, 2007). For 2005; Ragland et al., human animals. whether or not in order to ensure that patients do not the context of a sentence or example, in a recent 2006; Ragland et al., Some relevant performance on this confuse the two conditions. On item- story. It is thought that study from Dr. 2003) in which patients evidence, task changes in specific encoding blocks, participants relational encoding promotes Ranganath’s lab with schizophrenia showed however, comes response to will be presented with a single object memory for associations (Blumenfeld & performance similar to from studies of psychological or and asked to rate whether the object is amongst items, whereas item- Ranganath, 2006) controls on both item working memory pharmacological pleasant or unpleasant. On relational specific encoding enhances using a variant of the recognition and source tasks in monkeys. intervention. encoding blocks, they will be presented the distinctiveness of specific REaR task we retrieval for words that For example, a with three objects and asked to judge items (B. H. Bower, 1970; G. propose to study, were encoded using a single-unit whether they are in the correct order in H. Bower, 1970; Hunt & participants were semantic, item-specific recording study terms of weight. These encoding tasks Einsten, 1981; Hunt & scanned while task. The item-specific (Ninokura, orient the participants to use a specific McDaniel, 1993). In the performing a variant of task proposed for the Mushiake, & Tanji, type of processing -- rather than leaving episodic memory literature, the two WM tasks. On REaR is essentially 2004) showed that the approach up to the individual within relational encoding has been ‘rehearse’ trials, they identical to those used in neurons in the unknown results. In each study block, linked to the function of the were required to previous studies. monkey dorsal participants will encode 12 objects, and hippocampus, which is rehearse a set of 3 Therefore it is reasonable prefrontal cortex a total of 3 blocks will be completed for thought to support the binding words across a 12 to expect that patients encoded each encoding condition. The of novel representations second delay period in should show near-normal information about sequence of encoding blocks will be (Eichenbaum, 2006; anticipation of a LTM performance in this temporal order counterbalanced to minimize order Eichenbaum, Yonelinas, & question probing condition, and that this will relationships effects. During the retrieval phase of Ranganath, 2007; Squire, memory for the identity provide an appropriate between a series the task, participants will first complete 2004). The distinction between and serial position of baseline for comparison of items presented a yes/no recognition test consisting of a relational versus item-specific the items. On ‘reorder’ against performance for in a working random sequence of 72 previously encoding has also been trials, participants items that are encoded memory task. In studied objects (36 from item-specific supported by neuroimaging were required to using the relational task in contrast, ventral and 36 from relational) and 72 studies of working memory rearrange a set of the REaR paradigm which prefrontal neurons previously unseen foil objects. Next, (WM) that have revealed three words based on will have similar tended to encode participants will be given an associative dissociations between brain the weight of the psychometric the physical recognition test consisting of objects regions involved in item- object that each word characteristics in controls features of objects that were previously studied on specific WM maintenance and referred to over the (e.g., equal discriminating to be maintained. relational trials. The test will include 18 regions involved in delay and then power). Another study “intact” pairs consisting of objects that manipulation of relationships respond to a question demonstrated that were originally studied on the same trial between items while they are probing memory for lesions to mid- and 18 “recombined” pairs consisting of being maintained. Research serial order of the dorsolateral objects that were originally studied on has shown that DLPFC is items in the prefrontal cortex different trials. Subjects will be asked to selectively activated on trials rearranged set. impaired memory indicate if the pairs are intact or in which relationships among Although both for sequences of REFERENCES:

Badcock, J. C., Waters, F. A., Maybery, M. T., & Michie, P. T. (2005). Auditory hallucinations: failure to inhibit irrelevant memories. Cognit Neuropsychiatry, 10(2), 125-136. Blumenfeld, R. S., & Ranganath, C. (2006). Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex promotes long-term memory formation through its role in working memory organization. J Neurosci, 26(3), 916-925. Blumenfeld, R. S., & Ranganath, C. (2007). Prefrontal cortex and long-term memory encoding: an integrative review of findings from neuropsychology and neuroimaging. Neuroscientist, 13(3), 280-291. Blumenfeld, R. S., & Ranganath, C. (in preparation). Dissociable roles of ventrolateral and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during relational and item-specific encoding. Bonner-Jackson, A., Haut, K., Csernansky, J. G., & Barch, D. M. (2005). The influence of encoding strategy on episodic memory and cortical activity in schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry, 58, 47-55. Bower, B. H. (1970). Imagery as a relational organizer in associative learing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Vebal Behavior, 9, 529-533. Bower, G. H. (1970). Organizational factors in memory. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 18-46. Eichenbaum, H. (2006). Remembering: functional organization of the declarative memory system. Current Biology, 16(16), R643-645. Eichenbaum, H., Yonelinas, A. R., & Ranganath, C. (2007). The Medial Temporal Lobe and Recognition Memory. Annu Rev Neurosci. Hunt, R. R., & Einsten, G. O. (1981). Relational and item-specific information in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 920, 497-514. Hunt, R. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The enigma of organization and distinctiveness. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 421-445. Murray, L. J., & Ranganath, C. (2007). The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex contributes to successful relational memory encoding. J Neurosci, 27(20), 5515-5522. Ninokura, Y., Mushiake, H., & Tanji, J. (2004). Integration of temporal order and object information in the monkey lateral prefrontal cortex. J Neurophysiol, 91(1), 555-560. Petrides, M. (1995). Impairments on nonspatial self-ordered and externally ordered working memory tasks after lesions of the mid-dorsal part of the lateral frontal cortex in the monkey. Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 359-375. Postle, B. R., Berger, J. S., & D'Esposito, M. (1999). Functional neuroanatomical double dissociation of mnemonic and executive control processes contributing to working memory performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96, 12959-12964. Ragland, J. D., Gur, R. C., Valdez, J. N., Loughead, J., Elliott, M., Kohler, C., et al. (2005). Levels-of-processing effect on frontotemporal function in schizophrenia during word encoding and recognition. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(10), 1840-1848. Ragland, J. D., McCarthy, E., Bilker, W. B., Brensinger, C. M., Valdez, J., Kohler, C., et al. (2006). Levels-of-processing effect on internal source monitoring in schizophrenia. Psychol Med, 36(5), 641-648. Ragland, J. D., Moelter, S. T., McGrath, C., Hill, S. K., Gur, R. E., Bilker, W. B., et al. (2003). Levels-of-processing effect on word recognition in schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry, 54, 1154-1161. Schnider, A., & Ptak, R. (1999). Spontaneous confabulators fail to suppress currently irrelevant memory traces. Nat Neurosci, 2(7), 677-681. Schnider, A., Treyer, V., & Buck, A. (2000). Selection of currently relevant memories by the human posterior medial orbitofrontal cortex. J Neurosci, 20(15), 5880-5884. Schnider, A., Valenza, N., Morand, S., & Michel, C. M. (2002). Early cortical distinction between memories that pertain to ongoing reality and memories that don't. Cereb Cortex, 12(1), 54-61. Squire, L. R. (2004). Memory systems of the brain: a brief history and current perspective. Neurobiol Learn Mem, 82(3), 171-177. Treyer, V., Buck, A., & Schnider, A. (2003). Subcortical loop activation during selection of currently relevant memories. J Cogn Neurosci, 15(4), 610-618. Waters, F. A., Badcock, J. C., Maybery, M. T., & Michie, P. T. (2003). Inhibition in schizophrenia: association with auditory hallucinations. Schizophr Res, 62(3), 275-280.