 |
Previous Article | Next Article 
The Journal of Neuroscience, November 1, 2002, 22(21):9541-9548
Neural Correlates of Successful Encoding Identified Using
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Paul J.
Reber1, 3,
Robert M.
Siwiec1,
Darren R.
Gitleman2, 3,
Todd B.
Parrish2, 3,
M.-Marsel
Mesulam3, and
Ken A.
Paller1, 3
Departments of 1 Psychology and 2 Radiology
and the 3 Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer's Disease
Center, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60201
 |
ABSTRACT |
Neural activity that occurs during the creation of a new memory
trace can be observed using functional magnetic resonance imaging
(fMRI). Event-related designs have been used to demonstrate that
activity in prefrontal and medial temporal lobe areas is associated
with successful memory storage. Here we contrasted activity associated
with encoding success and encoding effort. Participants viewed a series
of 150 words but attempted to remember only half of them. Encoding
effort was manipulated using a cue in the form of a letter (R or F)
presented after each word to instruct participants either to remember
or to forget that word. Increased activity in left inferior prefrontal
cortex was observed when words were followed by the cue to remember. In
contrast, increased left medial temporal lobe activity was observed for words that were successfully recalled later. These results show that
fMRI correlates of the intention to encode a word are different from
fMRI correlates of whether that encoding is successful. Prefrontal activation was strongly associated with intentional verbal encoding, whereas left medial temporal activation was crucial for the encoding that actually led to successful memory on the subsequent test.
Key words:
episodic memory; medial temporal lobe; prefrontal cortex; event-related fMRI; subsequent memory; encoding
effort
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Neuropsychological evidence
indicates that memory for recently experienced episodes depends
critically on a number of interconnected brain regions, including the
medial temporal lobe (MTL) and prefrontal cortex (Squire and Knowlton,
2000 ; Squire and Schacter, 2002 ). Although lesion evidence has been
useful for implicating brain regions that are necessary for the
expression of episodic memories, it is more difficult to ascertain
whether these regions make their contributions to the formation,
storage, and retrieval of memories. Functional imaging allows
examination of the contributions of various brain regions to memory and
of how coordination between multiple processes supports memory
performance. In the present study, event-related functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to investigate the neural correlates
of memory encoding.
Neural events responsible for the formation of episodic memories have
been investigated previously (for review, see Paller and Wagner, 2002 ).
Wagner et al. (1998) acquired fMRI data while participants made
concrete/abstract judgments about words. Words subsequently recognized
with high confidence, compared with forgotten words, were associated
with encoding-related activity in left inferior prefrontal cortex
(LIPFC) (BA 44, 45, and 47) and left parahippocampal gyrus (BA
35/36). Brewer et al. (1998) devised a similar experiment in which
participants performed indoor/outdoor discriminations on visual scenes.
Subsequent recognition was associated with increased activation of
right prefrontal cortex and bilateral parahippocampal cortex. In both
cases, increased MTL activity predicted encoding success, whereas the
laterality of this effect was stimulus specific (left hemisphere for
words, right hemisphere for pictures). Encoding processes varied across
items because of fluctuations in participants' attention to the
stimuli, attention to the task, or the use of particular processing
strategies such as semantic elaboration. Furthermore, certain stimuli
may precipitate successful memory encoding attributable to
distinctiveness or idiosyncratically salient features. Therefore, it is
advantageous to combine the subsequent memory methodology, as used in
these previous experiments, with experimental manipulations that
specifically influence encoding.
In the present study, we monitored neural activity associated with
encoding and analyzed the influence of two factors. The first was
whether later recognition was successful. The second was the extent to
which the participant intended to memorize the stimulus information.
Intention to remember was manipulated with a procedure known as
directed forgetting (DF). Typical DF procedures entail cues to
participants to remember some items and forget others. DF instructions
at encoding can have a robust influence on subsequent memorability
(Bjork, 1989 ; Golding and MacLeod, 1998 ).
Participants viewed words and faces and were instructed to remember or
forget individual items on the basis of a cue presented 1 sec after
each stimulus. The 1 sec delay gave participants adequate time to
perceive, identify, and attend to each study item before knowing
whether to remember or forget. For analysis, trials were sorted on the
basis of the instruction (remember/forget) as well as on the subsequent
memory outcome, assessed with a post-scan recognition test. We thus
contrasted encoding intention and encoding success.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Participants. Twelve right-handed volunteers (9 women, 3 men) between the ages of 18 and 25 years (mean = 20) were
recruited from the Northwestern University community and screened for
compatibility with MRI scanning. Data from six other participants were
eliminated after testing because of errors in stimulus presentation.
All participants were native speakers of English. Each participant was
in good health and free from neurological and psychiatric problems. All
participants gave informed consent, and the study was approved by the
Institutional Review Board of Northwestern University.
Stimulus materials. Word stimuli were selected from the MRC
Psycholinguistic Database
(http://www.psy.uwa.edu.au/MRCDataBase/uwa_mrc.htm). Words ranged in frequency from 30 to 40 occurrences per million (Kucera
and Francis, 1967 ) and in length from 5 to 10 characters. One hundred
fifty words were chosen at random for the study phase. Face stimuli
were scanned from a 1997 high school yearbook (R. M. Siwiec), and
150 were chosen at random for the study phase. An additional 150 words
and 150 faces not used in the study phase were used as foils in the
memory test.
Procedure. On each trial, a word or a face was shown for
1000 msec, followed by either a cue to remember (a green "R") or a
cue to forget (a red "F") for 1500 msec and then by a 500 msec intertrial interval during which a fixation cross was shown.
Participants were instructed to watch all stimuli but to remember only
stimuli followed by the remember cue. To ensure that a minimum level of attention was paid to each stimulus, we required participants to
respond on each trial by indicating with a button press whether they
had seen a face or word. A short demonstration was used to familiarize
participants with the stimuli and cues. They were then situated in the
MR scanner, as described below, and the study phase was administered in
five scanning runs. Each run included 30 words and 30 faces, half with
a remember cue and half with a forget cue. To enable the separation of
individual hemodynamic responses by deconvolution, an additional 30 trials in each run consisted of only the fixation stimulus for 3 sec.
Randomized trial orders were selected to maximize the separation of
both cue and stimulus effects.
A recognition memory test was administered ~20 min after the
completion of the study task, outside of the scanner. Participants were
told that the test contained words and faces that were either novel or
from the study phase ("old"). For each test item shown on a
computer screen, participants were instructed to use two keys to
indicate whether the stimulus was novel or old. Participants were
instructed to make these responses regardless of whether the stimulus
had been followed by a remember or forget cue and to respond as quickly
and accurately as possible.
Imaging methods. A Siemens Vision 1.5-T magnet and head coil
were used. The subject's head was comfortably secured using padding and a vacuum-immobilizer device. Stimuli were projected onto a rear-projection screen and viewed through a mirror. Whole brain T2*-weighted gradient-recalled echoplanar images were collected during
the study task [24 6 mm slices; repetition time (TR) = 2000 msec;
echo time (TE) = 40 msec; flip angle = 85°; field of view
(FOV) = 24 cm]. Slices were oriented along the line
connecting the anterior and posterior commissure (AC/PC line; slightly
oblique from transverse) with a resolution of 3.75 × 3.75 × 6 mm. In each run, 154 whole-brain volumes were collected (4 initial
volumes to reach steady state, 135 volumes during the study phase, and an additional 15 volumes at the end of the scan to collect the residual
hemodynamic responses of the final trials). For anatomical localization, 3DFLASH T1-weighted images
(TR = 15 msec; TE = 5.6 msec; flip angle = 20°, 160 1 mm axial slices; FOV = 240 mm; 256 × 256 matrix) were
acquired after the study phase.
Image analysis. Images were coregistered through time using
a three-dimensional registration algorithm (Cox, 1996 ). Functional volumes were spatially smoothed with a 7.5 mm full-width half-maximum Gaussian kernel to improve the signal-to-noise and accommodate residual
anatomical differences across participants. Within each run, voxels
were eliminated if signal magnitude changed >10% between time points
(TR = 2 sec) or if the mean signal level was below a threshold.
Each of the runs was then transformed (Collins et al., 1994 ) to conform
approximately to the atlas of Talairach and Tournoux (1988) (using the
MNI-305 reference model) with a final resolution of 2.5 mm3. The five runs of functional data were
concatenated into a single time series for each participant. The
average response to each trial type was estimated using a general
linear model analysis (D. Ward, "Deconvolution Analysis of fMRI Time
Series Data," http://afni.nimh.nih.gov/afni) that included the
onset of each trial type and several control variables (average signal
and linear drift estimated individually for each of the five runs, and
estimates of corrected motion for each time point to remove signal
changes that were correlated with head/brain motion). Differences
between trial types were estimated by contrasting the average peak
response within the window of 4-8 sec after stimulus onset (to account
for hemodynamic delay). Differences between trial types were estimated
for each participant individually and then combined in a second-stage
random-effects analysis that identified differences in evoked responses
that were consistent across participants. Regions exhibiting a
significant effect by this random-effects analysis were those in which
each voxel exhibited a reliable change in activity across participants (t(11) > 3.5; p < 0.005 uncorrected) in a 500 mm3 region
(equal to 32 voxels in the 2.5 mm3
resolution of normalized space or ~6 voxels in the original
anatomical space). Monte Carlo simulations using normally distributed
noise with 750 time points (equivalent to the five runs) and 12 simulated participants indicate <5% false positives per experiment
with this statistical threshold.
 |
RESULTS |
Recognition memory performance on the post-scanning test
demonstrated the expected directed forgetting effects for words, as
shown in Figure 1. Participants endorsed
more words that had been given with the cue to remember (R-words) than
words given with the cue to forget (F-words)
(t(11) = 4.53; p < 0.001). In addition, participants exhibited successful memory for both
R- words and F-words by endorsing these at a higher rate than novel words (t(11) > 6.48;
p < 0.001). For face stimuli, participants exhibited
successful memory for the faces seen during scanning (t(11) > 4.56; p < 0.001) but did not exhibit a directed forgetting effect, because the
endorsement rates for R-faces and F-faces were not reliably different
(t(11) = 1.49; p > 0.10).

View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1.
Recognition performance for word and face stimuli
that had been studied while fMRI data were collected. Three types of
items were included on the recognition test: stimuli that had been cued
to be remembered (R), stimuli that had been cued
to be forgotten (F), and novel stimuli
(N). Endorsing the items as old is the correct
response for the R and F stimuli and reflects the false alarm rate for
the N stimuli. Error bars indicate the SEM.
|
|
Words
The robust effect of the remember/forget cue on encoding words was
reflected in a network of brain regions that exhibited increased
activity for R-words compared with F-words (Fig.
2, Table
1). Regions that exhibited increased
activity during remember trials included a sizeable portion of LIPFC.
This region includes both the anterior-ventral and posterior-dorsal
areas observed in many previous verbal encoding studies (Wagner et al.,
1998 ; Kirchhoff et al., 2000 ; Davachi et al., 2001 ; Otten et al.,
2001 ). In addition, increased activity was observed in the anterior
cingulate, middle superior frontal gyrus, left middle temporal gyrus,
right insula, and right cerebellum.

View larger version (77K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2.
A, Brain areas in which increased
activity was observed during word stimuli cued to be remembered
(R-words) compared with word stimuli cued to be forgotten (F-words).
Regions showing a reliable increase in activity across the group are
shown in color overlaid on axial slices from the
averaged high-resolution structural images. Regions shown are those for
which the difference in peak activity between R words and F words was
consistently greater than zero across the group of participants
(t(11) > 3.5 in a cluster >500
mm3 in volume). Color intensity
(red/orange/yellow)
indicates the magnitude of the average signal change between the two
conditions. The level of the images within the standard atlas is noted.
B, Time course of observed activity in the left inferior
prefrontal cortical region indicated within the green
circle on A for remember and forget trials. The
time course shown reflects averaged estimates of activity for each time
point across all voxels in the region for all participants (with slight
temporal smoothing for display purposes).
|
|
Responses on the subsequent recognition test were used to sort study
trials into those subsequently remembered (i.e., participants correctly
responded "old") and those subsequently forgotten (i.e., participants incorrectly responded "new"). Activity thus associated with successful encoding was contrasted regardless of the
remember/forget cue. Brain regions that exhibited increased activity
for subsequently remembered words (Fig.
3, Table 2)
included left parahippocampal cortex and posterior hippocampus, LIPFC,
right superior parietal cortex, and right cerebellum.

View larger version (55K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3.
A, Brain areas in which increased
activity was observed during word stimuli that were subsequently
remembered on the recognition test compared with word stimuli that were
not. Regions showing a reliable increase in activity across the group
are shown in color overlaid on axial slices from the
averaged high-resolution structural images. Regions shown are those for
which the difference in peak activity between remembered and forgotten
was consistently greater than zero across the group of participants
(t(11) > 3.5 in a cluster >500
mm3 in volume). Color intensity
(red/orange/yellow)
indicates the magnitude of the average signal change between the two
conditions. The level of the images within the standard atlas is noted.
B, Time course of observed activity in the left
posterior hippocampus and parahippocampal cortex region indicated with
the blue circle on A for successful and
unsuccessful memory trials. The time course shown reflects averaged
estimates of activity for each time point across all voxels in the
region for all participants (with slight temporal smoothing for display
purposes).
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 2.
Regions that exhibited greater activity for subsequently
remembered words than for subsequently forgotten words
|
|
The previous two contrasts reinforce the roles of both prefrontal
cortex and left medial temporal lobe in episodic encoding. In addition,
because the cue associated with each word was not completely predictive
of subsequent memory (i.e., some R-words were forgotten and some
F-words were remembered), it was possible to compare the effect of the
cue and subsequent memory performance separately. In this analysis,
each word was classified by both the subsequent memory outcome
[successful (SM); unsuccessful (UM)] and the cue [remember (R);
forget (F)]. The four possible conditions were thus SM-R, SM-F, UM-R,
and UM-F. There were an average of 41.2 SM-R trials for each
participant (range, 19-55), an average of 24.6 SM-F trials (range,
9-43), an average of 31.2 UM-R trials (range, 17-55), and an average
of 47.9 UM-F trials (range, 25-66).
The critical comparison is between R-words that were not successfully
remembered (UM-R) and F-words that were successfully remembered despite
the cue to forget them (SM-F). To identify areas in which activity was
more associated with the remember/forget cue than with subsequent
memory, differential activity associated with UM-R and SM-F trials was
compared within the network of brain areas already associated with the
remember cue. [Note that this comparison is effectively the
difference between the cue effect and the subsequent memory effect. The
effect of the cue = (SM-R + UM-R) (SM-F + UM-F) and the
subsequent memory effect = (SM-R + SM-F) (UM-R + UM-F).
Contrasting these two subtractions (cue SM) reduces to
2*UM-R 2*SM-F, a linear combination of (statistically equivalent to) the UM-R SM-F contrast used.] Restricting the analysis to just these regions (identified previously with a fairly stringent statistical threshold) reduced the number of concurrent comparisons. Accordingly, we identified clusters of voxels with consistently higher activity for UM-R trials than for SM-F trials at a
threshold of t(11) > 2.20 (p < 0.05 uncorrected). By this analysis, three
areas were identified: anterior cingulate, x = 6,
y = +21, z = +33 (volume = 1031 mm3, comprising 98.5% of the region
within which it was located); superior frontal gyrus, x = 10, y = 0, z = +60 (volume = 984 mm3, 97% of the region in which it
was located); and anterior left inferior prefrontal cortex,
x = 50, y = +28, z = +6 (volume = 797 mm3, 11% of the
region in which it was located). The identified areas were of sizeable
spatial extent (797-1031 mm3) and
encompass a large percentage of the source region of interest (ROI) for
the superior frontal gyrus and anterior cingulated, making it highly
unlikely that the differences were observed by chance.
A similar analysis examined regions that exhibited increased activity
for encoding success rather than encoding cue. In other words,
activations for SM-F trials versus UM-R trials indicated which areas
were reliably associated with successful encoding as opposed to the
attempt to encode. Two such subregions were identified: left
parahippocampal cortex, x = 28, y = 35, z = 12 (volume = 391 mm3, 70% of the region in which it was
located); and right superior parietal cortex, x = +32,
y = 62, z = +45 (volume = 156 mm3, 14% of the region in which it was
located). This left medial temporal region and associated fMRI
responses are shown in Figure 4,
C and D.

View larger version (74K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4.
Comparison of encoding effort and success in the
left inferior prefrontal cortex and medial temporal lobe.
A, The LIPFC region in which encoding effort was more
predictive of activity than encoding success (for words).
B, Time courses of observed activity for the four trial
types: successfully remembered R-words (SM-R),
unsuccessfully remembered R-words (UM-R), successfully
remembered F-words (SM-F), and unsuccessfully
remembered F-words (UM-F). Of particular note is
the fact that this area exhibits a strong response to R-words, even
when this effort does not produce successful memory (UM-R > SM-F). C, The left MTL region in which encoding success
was more predictive of activity than encoding effort (for words).
D, Time courses of observed activity in the MTL region
for the four trial types. In this region, successful encoding is
associated with an increase in activity, even after the forget cue,
whereas an unsuccessful encoding attempt is not associated with
increased activity (SM-F > UM-R).
|
|
To further verify that the analysis comparing the SM-F and UM-R trials
effectively captures differential activity for the regions examined, an
ROI analysis was done by combining the data for all voxels within each
region that exhibited increased activity for the remember cue and then
comparing the peak activity for the UM-R and SM-F trial types estimated
from the resulting time series. This analysis showed that the anterior
cingulate and superior frontal gyrus regions each exhibited
consistently higher activity for the UM-R trials
(t(11) > 3.25; p < 0.01). The region-wide effect in the LIPFC was only marginal
(t(11) = 1.83; p < 0.10), reflecting the fact that the region exhibiting increased UM-R activity was only a portion of the entire ROI. It is worth noting that
this analysis is strongly affected by a single outlying participant who
performed much worse than the rest of the group on the memory post-test
(remembering 25% of the R-words, compared with the group average of
57%), suggesting that this participant may have failed to use
an effective encoding strategy. Adjusting the analysis to weight
functional activity by memory performance or holding aside this outlier
finds the effect to be reliable across the rest of the group
(t(11) = 2.21, p < 0.05 and t(10) = 2.59, p < 0.05, respectively). Another possible reason for
the weaker ROI-wide response in the LIPFC is that the large LIPFC area
that exhibited greater activity for "remember" than "forget"
trials may include multiple sub-areas (Kirchhoff et al., 2000 ). Within this ROI, only an anterior, ventral subregion (Fig.
4A,B) exhibited reliably more
activity for the cue to remember compared with successful memory (in
the first voxel-based analysis above). The posterior portion of this
ROI exhibited increased activity for successful memory as well as for
the remember cue.
A similar analysis was performed for the combined voxels within each
ROI that exhibited increased activity for successful memory. Reliably
increased activity was observed for the SM-F trials compared with UM-R
trials in both the left parahippocampal region and the right superior
parietal region (t(11) = 3.48, p < 0.01 and t(11) = 2.51, p < 0.03, respectively).
Faces
Because participants did not exhibit a robust directed forgetting
effect for faces, it is not surprising that few brain areas showed
differential activity for faces associated with the remember cue
(R-faces) versus the forget cue (F-faces). Regions with greater activity for R-faces and F-faces are shown in Figure
5; coordinates are listed in Table
3. For R-faces, increased activity was
observed in left posterior occipital cortex, left fusiform gyrus, and
right inferior occipitotemporal cortex. In addition, two areas
exhibited greater activity for F-faces: right parietal cortex and right middle frontal gyrus. It is unclear whether these areas reflect activity associated with an attempt to forget or some other cognitive activity that occurs after the forget cue (e.g., rehearsal of other
previously presented stimuli, vigilance for the next stimulus).

View larger version (122K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5.
Brain areas in which increased activity was
observed during face stimuli cued to be remembered (R-faces) compared
with face stimuli cued to be forgotten (F-faces). Regions showing a
reliable increase in activity across the group are shown in
color overlaid on axial slices from the averaged
high-resolution structural images. Regions shown are those for which
the difference in peak activity between R-faces and F-faces was
consistently different from zero across the group of participants
(t(11) > 3.5 in a cluster >500
mm3 in volume). Warm colors
(red/orange/yellow)
indicate areas in which increased activity was observed for R-faces.
Cool colors (blue/cyan) indicate areas in
which increased activity was observed during F-face trials. The level
of the images within the standard atlas is noted.
|
|
No brain areas showed greater encoding activity for successfully
remembered faces compared with forgotten faces. This absence of
subsequent memory effects is likely attributable to the low recognition
accuracy for faces. Given the high false alarm rate (30% of the novel
faces were incorrectly endorsed as old) relative to the hit rate (40%
of the old faces were correctly endorsed as old), a large proportion of
faces considered to be subsequently remembered may reflect guessing
rather than a veridical memory.
Brain areas in which activity differed for word and face trials are
listed in Table 4. Areas where words
evoked consistent activity included the LIPFC (Broca's area) and left
superior temporal gyrus (Wernicke's area). Face stimuli evoked more
activity in the right amygdala and parahippocampal gyrus.
 |
DISCUSSION |
Encoding words
The conjoint analysis of subsequent memory effects and directed
forgetting effects yielded evidence that left inferior prefrontal cortex and the medial temporal lobe play different roles in verbal encoding. Based on the directed forgetting procedure, increased encoding effort on remember trials was associated with increased activity in LIPFC. Furthermore, comparisons between successful and
unsuccessful encoding based on subsequent recognition revealed what
have been termed declarative memory (DM) effects (Paller and Wagner,
2002 ). Increased left MTL activity was thus associated with the
successful formation of declarative memories.
Although effort and success were correlated, high effort did not always
lead to success and low effort did not always lead to forgetting.
Therefore, it was possible to separate these factors by comparing
trials when recognition was unsuccessful despite a remember cue (UM-R
trials) and trials when successful recognition followed a forget cue
(SM-F trials). The anterior, ventral portion of LIPFC exhibited greater
activity for UM-R trials, indicating that activity in this brain area
was more closely associated with the effort to encode a new memory than
with successful creation of a new memory. In contrast, left MTL
exhibited greater activity for SM-F trials, indicating that activity in
that area was more closely linked with the creation of a memory that
could be retrieved subsequently than with the intention to create a memory.
These two areas, LIPFC and left MTL, have been found in several
previous studies to coactivate as part of a circuit associated with
successful memory encoding (Wagner et al., 1998 ; Kirchhoff et al.,
2000 ; Baker et al., 2001 ; Otten and Rugg, 2001 ; Otten et al., 2001 ;
Strange et al., 2002 ). Factors that increase the effectiveness of
encoding, such as instructions to remember or deeper processing in a
levels-of-processing manipulation, might be expected to increase
activity throughout this circuit. In the current study, both areas were
strongly activated for successfully remembered trials that included the
remember cue (SM-R trials). In earlier investigations, comparisons
between successful and unsuccessful encoding were based on variability
in memory resulting from stimulus differences, varying levels of
attention and effort put forth across stimuli, and other uncontrolled
factors. By including cues to remember or forget in the present
experiment and presenting the cue after each stimulus presentation, we
reduced the effects of fluctuating attention from trial to trial on the
mnemonic fate of each stimulus. Because this directed forgetting
procedure manipulated encoding effort and effectiveness in a direct
manner, we were able to disentangle the roles of LIPFC and MTL in
encoding new episodic memories.
Although our a priori hypotheses concerned the roles of the
LIPFC and MTL in episodic encoding, similar patterns of activity were
also observed in other areas. The anterior cingulate and medial
superior frontal gyrus both exhibited patterns of activity similar to
LIPFC. These findings suggest that these additional frontal areas may
act in concert with LIPFC as part of a network supporting verbal
encoding effort. Right parietal cortex exhibited a pattern of activity
similar to that of left MTL, suggesting that this area may be acting to
support successful encoding of an episode. This right parietal area was
also identified by Davachi et al. (2001) as exhibiting increased
activity during rote word rehearsal that led to successful memory.
Processing in this region may play a supportive or subsidiary role in
encoding, given the ample neuropsychological evidence that the MTL is
critical for memory (Scoville and Milner, 1957 ; Squire, 1992 ). The
parietal area may process details of the spatiotemporal context of the episode, given that the context of the encoding episode is necessary to
later remember the episode and recognize the pre-experimentally familiar words on the test.
Two additional regions were identified as active during both encoding
effort and success. The posterior dorsal part of the LIPFC encoding
area and the right cerebellum both exhibited increased activity in
response to the remember cue and when encoding was successful, without
preferentially activating in either contrast. This pattern of
results suggests that these two areas are active when encoding is
attempted and when it is successful. However, it is unclear whether
these areas are engaged in a cognitive process common to both of these
conditions or whether these areas play different cognitive roles
depending on context. One possibility for a common process would be
linking a to-be-remembered word to semantic memory in an elaborative
manner (an effortful and successful encoding strategy).
Although inferences from neuropsychology did not originally point to
PFC as a necessary component of episodic encoding networks, neuroimaging results have repeatedly implicated PFC. Manipulations that
increase encoding effectiveness, such as deep or elaborative encoding,
consistently produce increased activity in left prefrontal cortex
(Kapur et al., 1994 , 1996 ; Buckner et al., 1999 ). These manipulations
may increase the effort that participants devote to encoding or may
reflect common mechanisms engaged when encoding effectiveness is
increased by any factor that improves subsequent memory. Although we
did not provide participants with instructions to use specific encoding
strategies during remember-cued trials, we expect that they engaged in
various elaborative encoding strategies, rote rehearsal, and other
mnemonic devices. The superior recognition of words that were cued to
be remembered indicates that these strategies were mostly successful.
Although LIPFC activity was observed on UM-R trials (when encoding
effort was unsuccessful), LIPFC may be part of a network specifically
engaged for verbal memory processing, perhaps for both rote rehearsal
and semantic elaboration. A related hypothesis is that LIPFC may play a
supporting or modulating role in episodic encoding through excitatory
inputs to MTL. LIPFC may help to precipitate processing in MTL that
functions to link various verbal and contextual features together, so
as to facilitate later retrieval of the encoding episode.
Encoding faces
In contrast to the effectiveness of DF cues on encoding of words,
the same cues had minimal effects on encoding novel faces. Given the
absence of a significant behavioral difference, it is not surprising
that little differential activity was observed related to the cue.
Despite this, increased activity was observed for remember trials in
three posterior cortical areas. Because the cue followed the faces,
this activity may reflect efforts to visualize the face after the
remember cue. In right midfrontal and parietal cortex, activity
increased during forget trials. This may reflect active attempts to
forget or to rehearse to-be-remembered stimuli from previous trials
during a forget trial. If displaced rehearsal took place, it would
remove power from both DF and subsequent memory analyses.
During the subsequent recognition test, participants produced a high
false alarm rate to novel faces, complicating the subsequent memory
analysis for faces by calling into question the proportion of correct
old responses that reflected veridical memories rather than correct
guessing. The resulting decrease in power likely caused the lack of
subsequent memory effects observed for faces. Because of this
limitation in DM studies, future test conditions should influence
response criteria to minimize the false alarm rate. It is also critical
that the difference between the correct old (hit) rate and the miss
rate is not too large; at maximal recognition performance, power is
greatly reduced for subsequent memory analysis because of a low number
of forgotten trials.
Stimulus-specific effects were found for words and faces (Table 4).
Increased activity for words was found throughout areas that have
classically shown greater involvement in language processing. Increased
activity for faces was observed only in the right amygdala and
parahippocampal gyrus. Although the fusiform gyrus was not active in
the group analysis, many individual subjects exhibited increases in
this area [reflecting the fusiform face area of Kanwisher et
al. (1997) ]. The general lack of activity for face stimuli suggests
that there may have been some perceptual difficulty associated with the
faces, possibly caused by poor image contrast. The greater stimulus-correlated activity for words reinforces the fact that for our
study, the responses to word stimuli are more informative about the PFC
and MTL circuitry that supports memory encoding.
Conclusion
By manipulating encoding through post-stimulus directed forgetting
instructions, we identified an association between the intention to
encode the episode of viewing a word and increased activity in left
inferior prefrontal cortex. By examining neural activity that was
predictive of subsequent success in remembering across the same trials,
we identified a different association between successful verbal
encoding and left medial temporal activation. We conclude that these
two areas collaborate in a circuit that supports the encoding of
episodic memories for verbal materials, but that these two regions play
divergent roles. In the normal course of operation, the intention to
encode results in increased activity in left inferior prefrontal
cortex. This activity in turn can potentially modulate activity in the
medial temporal lobe, where an increase in activity may reflect the
storage of the multidimensional links that effectively support
successful encoding.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
Received Feb. 15, 2002; revised July 31, 2002; accepted Aug. 21, 2002.
This research was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants
R01-MH58748 (P.J.R.) and R01-NS34639 (K.A.P.). We thank Patrick Skosnik
and Sara Polis for assistance with data collection, data analysis, and
manuscript preparation.
Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Paul J. Reber, Department of
Psychology, Northwestern University, 2029 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL
60201. E-mail: preber{at}northwestern.edu.
 |
REFERENCES |
-
Baker JT,
Sanders AL,
Maccotta L,
Buckner RL
(2001)
Neural correlates of verbal memory encoding during semantic and structural processing tasks.
NeuroReport
12:1251-1256[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Bjork RA
(1989)
Retrieval inhibition as an adaptive mechanism in human memory.
In: Varieties of memory and consciousness, pp 309-330 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
-
Brewer JB,
Zhao Z,
Desmond JE,
Glover GH,
Gabrieli JDE
(1998)
Making memories: brain activity that predicts how well visual experience will be remembered.
Science
281:1185-1187[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Buckner RL,
Kelley WM,
Petersen SE
(1999)
Frontal cortex contributes to human memory formation.
Nat Neurosci
2:311-314[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Collins DL,
Neelin P,
Peters TM,
Evans AC
(1994)
Automatic 3D inter-subject registration of MR volumetric data in standardized Talairach space.
J Comput Assist Tomogr
18:192-205[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Cox RW
(1996)
AFNI: Software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages.
Comput Biomed Res
29:162-173[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Davachi L,
Maril A,
Wagner AD
(2001)
When keeping in mind supports later bringing to mind: neural markers of phonological rehearsal predict subsequent remembering.
J Cognit Neurosci
13:1059-1070[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Golding JM,
MacLeod CM
(1998)
In: Intentional forgetting: interdisciplinary approaches. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
-
Kanwisher N,
McDermott J,
Chun MM
(1997)
The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception.
J Neurosci
17:4302-4311[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Kapur S,
Craik FIM,
Tulving E,
Wilson AA,
Houle S,
Brown GM
(1994)
Neuroanatomical correlates of encoding in episodic memory: levels of processed effect.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
91:2008-2011[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Kapur S,
Tulving E,
Cabeza R,
McIntosh AR,
Houle S,
Craik FIM
(1996)
The neural correlates of intentional learning of verbal materials: a PET study in humans.
Cognit Brain Res
4:243-249[Medline].
-
Kirchhoff BA,
Wagner AD,
Maril A,
Stern CE
(2000)
Prefrontal-temporal circuitry for episodic encoding and subsequent memory.
J Neurosci
20:6173-6180[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Kucera H,
Francis WN
(1967)
In: Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: RI: Brown UP.
-
Otten LJ,
Rugg MD
(2001)
Task-dependency of the neural correlates of episodic encoding as measured by fMRI.
Cereb Cortex
11:1150-1160[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Otten LJ,
Henson RNA,
Rugg MD
(2001)
Depth of processing effect on neural correlates of memory encoding: relationship between findings from across- and within-task comparison.
Brain
124:399-412[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Paller KA,
Wagner AD
(2002)
Observing the transformation of experience into memory.
Trends Cognit Neurosci
6:93-102.
-
Scoville WB,
Milner B
(1957)
Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr
20:11-21[Free Full Text].
-
Squire LR
(1992)
Memory and the hippocampus: a synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans.
Psychol Rev
99:195-231[Web of Science][Medline].
-
Squire LR,
Knowlton BJ
(2000)
The medial temporal lobe, the hippocampus, and the memory systems of the brain.
In: The new cognitive neurosciences, Ed 2 (Gazzaniga MS,
ed), pp 765-779. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
-
Squire LR,
Schacter DL
(2002)
In: The neuropsychology of memory, Ed 3. New York: Guilford.
-
Strange BA,
Otten LJ,
Josephs O,
Rugg MD,
Dolan RJ
(2002)
Dissociable human perirhinal, hippocampal, and parahippocampal roles during verbal encoding.
J Neurosci
22:523-528[Abstract/Free Full Text].
-
Talairach J,
Tournoux P
(1988)
In: A coplanar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain. Stuttgart: Thieme.
-
Wagner AD,
Schacter DL,
Rotte M,
Koutstaal W,
Maril A,
Dale AM,
Rosen BR,
Buckner RL
(1998)
Building memories: remembering and forgetting of verbal experiences as predicted by brain activity.
Science
281:1188-1191[Abstract/Free Full Text].
Copyright © 2002 Society for Neuroscience 0270-6474/02/22219541-08$05.00/0
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. Guderian, B. H. Schott, A. Richardson-Klavehn, and E. Duzel
Medial temporal theta state before an event predicts episodic encoding success in humans
PNAS,
March 31, 2009;
106(13):
5365 - 5370.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. M. FAWCETT and T. L. TAYLOR
Forgetting is effortful: Evidence from reaction time probes in an item-method directed forgetting task
Mem Cognit,
September 1, 2008;
36(6):
1168 - 1181.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. A. Meltzer, H. P. Zaveri, I. I. Goncharova, M. M. Distasio, X. Papademetris, S. S. Spencer, D. D. Spencer, and R. T. Constable
Effects of Working Memory Load on Oscillatory Power in Human Intracranial EEG
Cereb Cortex,
August 1, 2008;
18(8):
1843 - 1855.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
G. R. Wylie, J. J. Foxe, and T. L. Taylor
Forgetting as an Active Process: An fMRI Investigation of Item-Method-Directed Forgetting
Cereb Cortex,
March 1, 2008;
18(3):
670 - 682.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
U. Hasson, H. C. Nusbaum, and S. L. Small
Brain Networks Subserving the Extraction of Sentence Information and Its Encoding to Memory
Cereb Cortex,
December 1, 2007;
17(12):
2899 - 2913.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. M. Achim, M.-C. Bertrand, H. Sutton, A. Montoya, Y. Czechowska, A. K. Malla, R. Joober, J. C. Pruessner, and M. Lepage
Selective Abnormal Modulation of Hippocampal Activity During Memory Formation in First-Episode Psychosis
Arch Gen Psychiatry,
September 1, 2007;
64(9):
999 - 1014.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Kim and R. Cabeza
Differential Contributions of Prefrontal, Medial Temporal, and Sensory-Perceptual Regions to True and False Memory Formation
Cereb Cortex,
September 1, 2007;
17(9):
2143 - 2150.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. B. Sederberg, A. Schulze-Bonhage, J. R. Madsen, E. B. Bromfield, D. C. McCarthy, A. Brandt, M. S. Tully, and M. J. Kahana
Hippocampal and Neocortical Gamma Oscillations Predict Memory Formation in Humans
Cereb Cortex,
May 1, 2007;
17(5):
1190 - 1196.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. Lemon and D. Manahan-Vaughan
Dopamine D1/D5 Receptors Gate the Acquisition of Novel Information through Hippocampal Long-Term Potentiation and Long-Term Depression
J. Neurosci.,
July 19, 2006;
26(29):
7723 - 7729.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. J. Gold, C. N. Smith, P. J. Bayley, Y. Shrager, J. B. Brewer, C. E. L. Stark, R. O. Hopkins, and L. R. Squire
Item memory, source memory, and the medial temporal lobe: Concordant findings from fMRI and memory-impaired patients
PNAS,
June 13, 2006;
103(24):
9351 - 9356.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
B. H. Schott, A. Richardson-Klavehn, R. N. A. Henson, C. Becker, H.-J. Heinze, and E. Duzel
Neuroanatomical Dissociation of Encoding Processes Related to Priming and Explicit Memory
J. Neurosci.,
January 18, 2006;
26(3):
792 - 800.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. S. Blumenfeld and C. Ranganath
Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Promotes Long-Term Memory Formation through Its Role in Working Memory Organization
J. Neurosci.,
January 18, 2006;
26(3):
916 - 925.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. Schon, M. E. Hasselmo, M. L. LoPresti, M. D. Tricarico, and C. E. Stern
Persistence of Parahippocampal Representation in the Absence of Stimulus Input Enhances Long-Term Encoding: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study of Subsequent Memory after a Delayed Match-to-Sample Task
J. Neurosci.,
December 8, 2004;
24(49):
11088 - 11097.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
B. H. Schott, D. B. Sellner, C.-J. Lauer, R. Habib, J. U. Frey, S. Guderian, H.-J. Heinze, and E. Duzel
Activation of Midbrain Structures by Associative Novelty and the Formation of Explicit Memory in Humans
Learn. Mem.,
July 1, 2004;
11(4):
383 - 387.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. N. Macrae, J. M. Moran, T. F. Heatherton, J. F. Banfield, and W. M. Kelley
Medial Prefrontal Activity Predicts Memory for Self
Cereb Cortex,
June 1, 2004;
14(6):
647 - 654.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|

|