Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Behavioral evidence of mnemonic control during the TNT phase as measured by subsequent memory recall (i.e., percentage Recalled) on the Same-Probe task. A, Behavioral data from our previous behavioral study (N = 70; Paz-Alonso et al., 2009). The bar graph shows the percentage of word–word associations recalled as a function of age group and study condition (Think, Baseline, No-Think). B, Behavioral data for the present fMRI study sample (N = 43) as a function of age group and study condition. C, Behavioral data for the present study as a function of individual differences in mnemonic control (nonsuppressors, suppressors) and study condition. B, C, Dotted outlines indicate the condition (Baseline) for which fMRI data were not collected.*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
- Figure 2.
Whole-brain contrasts comparing attempts with retrieve versus suppress retrieval, across all participants. A, Task effects: No-Think > Think (red) and the opposite Think > No-Think (blue) contrasts in slice sections along the y-axis. B, Regions associated with successful suppression. Brain renderings and slice sections showing activation for successful retrieval suppression relative to successful retrieval (i.e., No-Think-forgotten > Think-remembered trials).
- Figure 3.
Modulation of the MTL as a function of task instructions and subsequent memory, across all participants. Yellow represents voxels showing the standard subsequent memory effect: remembered Think trials > forgotten Think trials; light blue, voxels modulated by task instructions: Think > No-Think; dark blue, voxels modulated by task instructions, limited to successful trials: Think-remembered > No-Think-forgotten; medium blue, overlap between the last two contrasts. All these contrasts are featured at a q < 0.05 FDR-corrected threshold.
- Figure 4.
Functional connectivity analyses for all trials relative to Baseline. A, Brain renderings showing clusters identified from the conjunction analysis of the clusters tightly correlated, across the entire brain and participants, with both left and right hippocampus seeds for All > Null. B, Average coupling strength between all the clusters tightly correlated with hippocampus as a function of Suppression group, Task, and Memory. Average coupling strength was higher for No-Think-forgotten than for Think-forgotten conditions, only for those participants who did exhibit behavioral memory suppression effects. C, ROIs tightly correlated with hippocampus used in subsequent functional connectivity pairwise correlations, including left and right hippocampus (Hipp), middle cingulate (mCing), posterior cingulate (pCing), right lateral posterior parietal cortex (lPPC), and right dlPFC seeds. D, Correlation matrices showing differences in pairwise correlation strength between pairs of ROIs described in C for No-Think-forgotten–Think-forgotten for suppressors versus nonsuppressors.
In this issue
