Neuroscience: Category-specific cortical activity precedes retrieval during memory search

Science

Volumn 310, Issue 5756, 2005, Pages 1963-1966

  Polyn, Sean M ^a   Natu, Vaidehi S ^b   Cohen, Jonathan D ^b   Norman, Kenneth A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; NEUROLOGY; PATTERN RECOGNITION;

ACTIVITY PATTERNS; NEUROSCIENCE; PATTERN-CLASSIFICATION ALGORITHM;

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

BIOLOGY;

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MEMORY; MENTAL TASK; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECALL; ADULT; ALGORITHM; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PHYSIOLOGY;

ADULT; ALGORITHMS; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MEMORY; MENTAL RECALL; SPACE PERCEPTION;

EID: 29344464279     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1117645     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, in Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, PDP Research Group, Eds. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986), vol. 2, chap. 17, p. 170.
2. J. L. McClelland, in Memory Distortion: How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past, D. L. Schacter, Ed. (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995), chap. 2, p. 69.
3. E. Tulving, Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2, 67 (1993).
4. K. A. Norman, D. L. Schacter, Implicit Memory and Metacognition, L. M. Reder, Ed. (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1996).
5. M. W. Howard, M. J. Kahana, J. Math. Psychol. 46, 269 (2002).
6. E. Tulving, D. Thompson, Psychol. Rev. 80, 352 (1973).
7. F. C. Bartlett, Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1932).
8. L. Sahakyan, C. M. Kelley, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 28, 1064 (2002).
9. S. M. Smith, in Memory in Context: Context in Memory, G. M. Davies, D. M. Thomson, Eds. (Wiley, Oxford, UK, 1988), pp. 13-34.
10. M. W. Howard, M. J. Kahana, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 25, 923 (1999).
11. M. E. Wheeler, S. E. Petersen, R. L. Buckner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 11125 (2000).
12. L. Nyberg, R. Habib, E. Tulving, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 11120 (2000).
13. M. E. Wheeler, R. L. Buckner, J. Neurosci. 23, 3869 (2003).
14. I. Kahn, L. Davachi, A. D. Wagner, J. Neurosci. 24, 4172 (2004).
15. A. P. R. Smith, R. N. A. Henson, R. J. Dolan, M. D. Rugg, Neuroimage 22, 868 (2004).
16. R. Shiffrin, R. Ratcliff, S. Clark J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 16, 179 (1990).
17. J. V. Haxby et al., Science 293, 2425 (2001).
18. T. M. Mitchell et al., Mach. Learn. 5, 145 (2004).
19. S. J. Hanson, T. Matsuka, J. V. Haxby, Neuroimage 23, 156 (2004).
20. D. D. Cox, R. L. Savoy, Neuroimage 19, 261 (2003).
21. Materials and methods-including behavioral paradigm, scanning parameters, classifier methods, data preprocessing details, details regarding nonparametric statistics, and details of map creation-are available as supporting material on Science Online.
22. N. Kanwisher, J. McDermott, M. M. Chun, J. Neurosci. 17, 4302 (1997).
23. R. Epstein, N. Kanwisher, Nature 392, 598 (1998).
24. A listing of the brain regions that were most reliably activated by each study context across subjects (as identified by a group general linear model analysis) is available (21).
25. Y. Kamitani, F. Tong, Nat. Neurosci. 8, 679 (2005).
26. J. D. Haynes, G. Rees, Nat. Neurosci. 8, 686 (2005).
27. When computing the correlation between classifier estimates and recall behavior, we adjusted for the hemodynamic response in two ways. In our primary analysis, we shifted the recall record forward by three time points (as in Fig. 1). We also ran a secondary analysis, where we convolved the recall record with a model of the hemodynamic response. The two analyses yielded very similar results (21).
28. The following example details how a set of hypothetical recall events are assigned to the currently recalled, recently recalled, and baseline plots. Assume that a subject recalls nothing for 20 s, then recalls a location ("Taj Mahal"), then recalls a face ("Bruce Lee") 5 s after recalling the location. The location recall ("Taj Mahal") qualifies for inclusion in the event-related average, because no other locations were recalled in the preceding 14.4 s. for the location recall, the currently recalled category is location, and both the face and object categories are assigned to the baseline plot (because neither faces nor objects were recalled in the 14.4 s preceding the location recall). The face recall ("Bruce Lee") also qualifies for inclusion in the event-related average, because no other faces were recalled in the preceding 14.4 s. With regard to the face recall, the currently recalled category is face; the location category is assigned to the recently recalled plot, because a location item was recalled during the 14.4 s preceding the face recall; and the object category is assigned to the baseline plot, because no items were recalled from that category in the 14.4 s preceding the face recall.
29. This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to K.A.N. (R01MH069456) and to J.D.C. (R01MH052864). S.M.P. was supported by a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award predoctoral fellowship from NIMH (MH070177-01). Special thanks to R. Schapire, J. Haxby, P. Sederberg, and M. Kahana for comments; to C. Buck for assisting with running the subjects; and to S. Taterkart and L. Nystrom for assistance with the analysis.