4.8 Article

Fidelity of neural reactivation reveals competition between memories

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1016939108

关键词

forgetting; pattern classification

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [5R01-MH080309, 5R01-MH076932, R01-EY014193, P30-EY000785, EY019624-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Remembering an event from the past is often complicated by the fact that our memories are cluttered with similar events. Though competition is a fundamental part of remembering, there is little evidence of how mnemonic competition is neurally represented. Here, we assessed whether competition between visual memories is captured in the relative degree to which target vs. competing memories are reactivated within the ventral occipitotemporal cortex (VOTC). To assess reactivation, we used multivoxel pattern analysis of fMRI data, quantifying the degree to which retrieval events elicited patterns of neural activity that matched those elicited during encoding. Consistent with recent evidence, we found that retrieval of visual memories was associated with robust VOTC reactivation and that the degree of reactivation scaled with behavioral expressions of target memory retrieval. Critically, competitive remembering was associated with more ambiguous patterns of VOTC reactivation, putatively reflecting simultaneous reactivation of target and competing memories. Indeed, the more weakly that target memories were reactivated, the more likely that competing memories were later remembered. Moreover, when VOTC reactivation indicated that conflict between target and competing memories was high, frontoparietal mechanisms were markedly engaged, revealing specific neural mechanisms that tracked competing mnemonic evidence. Together, these findings provide unique evidence that neural reactivation captures competition between individual memories, providing insight into how well target memories are retrieved in the present and how likely competing memories will be remembered in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据