Memory Contextualization: the Role of Prefrontal Cortex in Functional Integration Across Item and Context Representational Regions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Memory Contextualization: The Role of Prefrontal Cortex in Functional Integration across Item and Context Representational Regions Wei Zhang1,2, Vanessa A. van Ast3, Floris Klumpers1,2, Karin Roelofs1,2*, and Erno J. Hermans1,4* Abstract ■ Memory recall is facilitated when retrieval occurs in the orig- texts, after scanning. Enhanced face recognition in intact relative inal encoding context. This context dependency effect likely re- to rearranged contexts evidenced successful memory contextu- sults from the automatic binding of central elements of an alization. Overall subsequent memory effects (brain activity pre- experience with contextual features (i.e., memory “contextuali- dicting whether items were later remembered vs. forgotten) zation”) during encoding. However, despite a vast body of re- were found in the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) and right search investigating the neural correlates of explicit associative amygdala. Effective connectivity analyses showed that stronger memory, the neural interactions during encoding that predict context-dependent memory was associated with stronger cou- implicit context-dependent memory remain unknown. Twenty- pling of the left IFG with face- and place-responsive areas, both six participants underwent fMRI during encoding of salient stim- within and between participants. Our findings indicate an impor- uli (faces), which were overlaid onto unique background images tant role for the IFG in integrating information across wide- (contexts). To index subsequent context-dependent memory, spread regions involved in the representation of salient items face recognition was tested either in intact or rearranged con- and contextual features. ■ INTRODUCTION Linszen, & Meeter, 2010). However, despite its relevance Context is essential for memory retrieval. It is well estab- for general healthy memory function and clinical memory lished that memories are easier to recall when retrieval overgeneralization, the brain mechanisms underlying mem- occurs in a context that resembles the original encoding ory contextualization—the process whereby automatic en- context (van Ast, Cornelisse, Meeter, & Kindt, 2014; van coding of an item-in-context results in subsequent implicit Ast, Cornelisse, Meeter, Joëls, & Kindt, 2013; Smith & context effects on memory (i.e., memory enhancement Vela, 2001; Godden & Baddeley, 1975; Tulving & Thomson, by context similarity without testing for the explicit item– 1973). Memory contextualization, in which an event and context association)—are just beginning to be explored. its context are automatically bound together into one inte- Evidence from rodents shows that selective hippo- grated representation during encoding, is vital for the campal damage results in deficits in forming a memory subsequent retrieval of relevant memories in specific situa- of the context (or location) where items were previously tions (van Ast et al., 2013, 2014; Liberzon & Sripada, 2008). encountered (Eichenbaum, 2004). For instance, rats with Conversely, the inability to properly contextualize infor- hippocampal lesions fail to recognize a previously en- mation has been linked to fragmentation of episodic countered object when contextual information relative memories and overgeneralization of (fear) memories that to encoding has been changed (Mumby, Gaskin, Glenn, are characteristic of, for instance, posttraumatic stress dis- Schramek, & Lehmann, 2002). Other evidence for a role order (PTSD; Quaedflieg et al., 2015; Acheson, Gresack, & of the hippocampus in implicit context effects on mem- Risbrough, 2012; Meyer et al., 2012; Brewin, Gregory, Lipton, ory for cues comes from fear conditioning studies: In & Burgess, 2010; Liberzon & Sripada, 2008; Ehlers & Clark, addition to conditioned freezing to an auditory cue, rats 2000) or schizophrenia (Talamini, de Haan, Nieman, also exhibit freezing behavior when placed in the training context, but hippocampal lesions eliminate such contex- tual fear responses without affecting conditioned re- 1Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, 2Behav- sponses to the tone (Phillips & LeDoux, 1992). Recently, ioural Science Institute, Radbound University, 3University of using large-scale neuronal population recordings, new in- Amsterdam, 4Radboud university medical center sights into the nature of hippocampal context representa- *These authors contributed equally to this article. tions have emerged. Such studies show that hippocampal © 2017 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 30:4, pp. 579–593 doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01218 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/jocn_a_01218 by guest on 01 October 2021 ensemble context codes become associated with the quired (Murray & Ranganath, 2007; Summerfield et al., memories and behaviors that are appropriate for that con- 2006; Prince, 2005). Indeed, lateral areas of PFC might be text. When confronted with a familiar context, the relevant involved in selecting task-relevant information and in hippocampal context code is automatically reexpressed, strategy implementation to find associations among items thereby priming the appropriate memories while reducing during memory encoding (Ranganath, 2010a). When an interference from memories associated with other con- event is encoded in a particular context, PFC is therefore texts (for a review, see Smith & Bulkin, 2014). likely to contribute to the process of integrating relevant Analogous to this animal work, implicit context depen- elements together. In agreement with this line of reason- dency of memories has been demonstrated in human stud- ing, some fMRI studies documented the involvement of ies where context similarity between the original encoding both the hippocampus and PFC in enhanced item (i.e., and retrieval context enhanced both recognition and re- word) memory in semantic versus nonsemantic contexts collection (Cox, Tijdens, Meeter, Sweegers, & Talamini, (Wagner, 1998; Kapur et al., 1994) or maintaining a rep- 2014; van Ast et al., 2013, 2014; Talamini & Gorree, 2012; resentation of temporal context (Davachi & DuBrow, 2015; Talamini et al., 2010; Tsivilis, Otten, & Rugg, 2001). The Jenkins & Ranganath, 2010). However, as these studies consistent observation of highly context-dependent mem- employed either encoding instructions informing about a ories across this wide range of studies underscores context- subsequent explicit associative recognition test or used dependent memory as one of the hallmarks of human very broad context manipulations, such observations do episodic memory (Tulving, 1972). With respect to the neu- not necessarily imply that the same brain regions are in- ral correlates of such context-dependent memories, one volved when no instructions are given to memorize the study using magnetoencephalography has shown that, relevant items (i.e., incidental encoding) or when sub- with an intact encoding-retrieval context, high theta power sequent recognition is putatively modulated by implicit during encoding predicted successful recognition, whereas context effects (i.e., when memory enhancement by con- high theta power was detrimental when the retrieval con- text similarity is assessed on item recognition without test- text was rearranged relative to encoding. In addition, cross- ing for the explicit item–context association). Indeed, a frequency coupling analysis revealed a context-dependent patient study suggests that the neural structures under- theta-to-gamma memory effect, which was assigned to the lying explicit binding versus implicit contextual probing left hippocampus using source localization (Staudigl & may differ (Graf & Schacter, 1985; but see Chun & Phelps, Hanslmayr, 2013). An intracranial electroencephalography 1999). Thus, previous fMRI studies did not unequivocally (iEEG) study furthermore implicated the prefrontal cortex address the question on which neural processes during (PFC) in successful item in context (temporal, in this case) encoding contribute to subsequent implicit context effects binding during memory encoding, resulting in implicit on memory. context-dependent (i.e., clustering) memory (Long & Only two studies so far used an implicit context manip- Kahana, 2015). However, given inherent uncertainty of ulation during recognition (Hayes, Baena, Truong, & (deep) source localization of EEG and magnetoencepha- Cabeza, 2010; Hayes, Nadel, & Ryan, 2007). In those lography signals and limited coverage of intracranial elec- studies, faces during encoding were presented against a troencephalography, an extension of these findings using naturalistic scene (Hayes et al., 2007, 2010) or a mono- techniques that allow for stronger spatial inferences, such colored white (Hayes et al., 2007) and black (Hayes as fMRI, is needed. et al., 2010) background. Both studies found a decrement In contrast with such studies assessing (neural) encod- in recognition when a face encoded in a scene-context ing mechanisms that can subsequently modulate implicit was presented against a monocolored background during context effects on recognition, previous fMRI studies have recognition, as compared with faces that were presented almost exclusively focused on how subsequent explicit against a monocolored background both during encod- memory of relations among cues is accomplished during ing and recognition. This effect was associated with a encoding (Davachi, 2006). “Context” in these studies re- larger subsequent memory effect (SME), for example, fers to scenes that were explicitly