Skip to main content

Umbrella menu

  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Preparing a Manuscript
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Fees
    • Journal Club
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Preparing a Manuscript
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Fees
    • Journal Club
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Journal Club

The Medial Prefrontal Cortex and the Deceptiveness of Memory

Marlieke T.R. van Kesteren and Thackery I. Brown
Journal of Neuroscience 8 October 2014, 34 (41) 13569-13570; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3091-14.2014
Marlieke T.R. van Kesteren
Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thackery I. Brown
Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Imagine you have read an interesting article that strongly reminded you of one of your former colleagues' research. You notice that is written by a different research group, but you do not pay too much attention to this and read the article with much pleasure. A few months later you meet your former colleague at a conference and remember the paper you read. You tell him/her that you really enjoyed reading their article. Relating the new article to your colleagues' research has clearly helped you remember its contents, but you have also falsely remembered the article to be theirs. How did that happen?

This situation is one example of how an important process that allows us to integrate and generalize across memories in daily life can also open opportunities for mnemonic errors. The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) is thought to be one structure underlying these abilities. In recent years, mPFC function has emerged as a key area of study for understanding higher-order memory and decision-making processes. It is a large, functionally and cytoarchitectonically diverse region, whose intimate connectivity with the medial temporal lobes (MTL) may underlie its involvement in a multitude of memory-related tasks. Lesions to the mPFC lead to a range of differences in decision-making, judging emotional and moral states, and task switching. Additionally, patients with mPFC damage often confabulate and lack memory-enhancing effects related to personal social and mnemonic reasoning.

Recent interest in the role that prior knowledge (or a schema) plays in learning and memory has provided a new framework for understanding how components of the mPFC contribute to cognition. Theories of mPFC function centered on schemas propose that this region plays a critical role in guiding decision making and mnemonic processes that interact with previously stored knowledge (van Kesteren et al., 2012; Preston and Eichenbaum, 2013). Consequently, patients with lesions to the mPFC are assumed to lack guidance of prior knowledge in mnemonic reasoning, memory formation, and decision-making. Indeed, mPFC damage has frequently been associated with cognitive and memory impairments. For example, mPFC lesions abolish memory-enhancing effects such as the self-referencing effect in which self-related memories are better remembered (Philippi et al., 2012) and improved transitive inference of relationships between separately learned associations (Koscik and Tranel, 2012). Moreover, in a navigation setting, mPFC damage has been found to impair the ability to overcome interference from alternative, incorrect navigational memories (Ciaramelli, 2008).

Despite the importance of the mPFC for memory and decision making, mPFC functions may also lead to overgeneralization and overreliance on prior knowledge, which can underlie false memories or false confidence about details of a memory. Consequently, damage to this region could actually improve memory performance in some circumstances. In a recently published paper, Warren et al. (2014) reasoned that if the mPFC is indeed involved in relating current experience and behavior to prior knowledge, then mnemonic consequences of this mechanism should be absent in lesion patients. If mPFC lesion patients cannot draw on semantic or contextual similarities to make judgments about a memory, they are expected to have fewer false memories that arise because of erroneous attribution to previously learned information, such as in the example where an article is misattributed to a colleague. Paradoxically, this will lead them to benefit from their lesion by encoding a memory trace that is less biased toward previously learned information than their healthy peers.

In psychology, a common way to test false memory is through the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm, in which participants learn a set of words with a common theme (such as “cold,” “blizzard,” “winter”). When subsequently tested, participants often falsely assign a related word (e.g., “snow”) to the learned list. Because the mPFC has been suggested to link information to a mnemonic schema, Warren and colleagues (2014) hypothesized that patients with lesions in this region would show less of these misattributed false memories in the DRM paradigm. They thus tested memory on the DRM paradigm in a group of mPFC-lesioned patients and compared performance to healthy controls. For free recall of words on the list, they found that the patient group showed a significantly lower amount of false memories, indicating that mPFC lesions indeed keep patients from misattributing related words to the learned list. This decrease in false memories likely relates to a shared mechanistic account that also underlies the diminished memory-enhancing effects described above. Additionally, these findings support direct predictions from the schema literature that hypothesize that mPFC lesions lower enhancing effects of prior knowledge on learning and consolidating new information. This could then lead to a weaker bias toward knowledge structures and a consequent decrease in false memories at retrieval.

Moving forward, a challenge for researchers seeking to understand the complex functions of the mPFC is to identify the links between empirical data and extant theoretical accounts. In rodents, mPFC lesions have been shown to abolish the task/context selectivity of some neurons representing objects at locations (Navawongse and Eichenbaum, 2013), potentially impairing the ability to leverage contextual information to retrieve specific memories. Based on these findings and the findings of Warren and colleagues (2014), mPFC functioning might serve as a mechanism for flexibly accessing memories based on contextual information including task rules and goals (Kroes and Fernández, 2012; Brown et al., 2014). The decrease in false alarms found by Warren and colleagues (2014) could then represent a deficit in the natural ability of humans to leverage contextual information (such as the “theme” of the words being tested or your knowledge about your colleagues' research when reading a new paper) to make mnemonic judgments when memory traces are weak. Such a mechanism is typically beneficial when filtering incoming information for relevance or basing decisions on prior outcomes.

The findings of Warren and colleagues (2014) might motivate researchers to take a different view on memory systems and the characterization of memory success. In an experimental setting, whether a memory is remembered or forgotten might not only result from brain states (e.g., attention and motivation) at the moment of encoding, but may also be influenced by complex interactions with prior knowledge. Activation of relevant prior knowledge can help boost new memories and store them more schematically, because they can be directly related to a network of previously learned associations (van Kesteren et al., 2012). When memories lack such a connection to prior knowledge, they may be forgotten more easily or may require stronger retrieval cues to be activated. A critical question in memory research is therefore whether the relationship between newly learned information and prior knowledge can also lead memories to be stored differently: either more episodically detailed or assimilated within previously stored semantic traces.

In addition to encoding processes, offline consolidation processes are also suggested to be affected by interactions with prior knowledge (Tse et al., 2007). Therefore, the role of the mPFC in consolidating knowledge should be further examined in future research. For example, do mPFC lesion patients show retrograde amnesia that is specific to the prior knowledge effects mentioned above? Consequently, will they also show less of the described false memory effects for knowledge that was acquired before their lesion or are the mPFC influences specific to encoding processes? Furthermore, are the decreased false memory effects that Warren and colleagues (2014) describe preserved over a future period of consolidation or do they fade away? And finally, regardless of the answers to the previous questions, what would the findings mean for the interpretation of previously reported retrograde amnesia effects following MTL lesions?

In the real-world example where you falsely remember the authors of a great paper, the fact that you forgot that the paper was actually written by other researchers might be a consequence of your brain trying to make the complex world more consistent and predictable. Consequently, less significance is given to the fact that the data actually originate from a different and unknown research group, which leads to misattribution errors. The findings of Warren and colleagues (2014) suggest that the mPFC may play a role in such errors, and provide important insights into the conditions under which mPFC function may impair, rather than facilitate, certain types of memory.

Footnotes

  • Editor's Note: These short, critical reviews of recent papers in the Journal, written exclusively by graduate students or postdoctoral fellows, are intended to summarize the important findings of the paper and provide additional insight and commentary. For more information on the format and purpose of the Journal Club, please see http://www.jneurosci.org/misc/ifa_features.shtml.

  • M.T.R.v.K. is supported by a Rubicon Fellowship from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. We thank Rik Henson for proofreading.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Marlieke T. R. van Kesteren, Department of Psychology, Jordan Hall, Building 420, Mail Code 2130, Stanford, CA 94305. m.vankesteren{at}stanford.edu

References

  1. ↵
    1. Brown TI,
    2. Whiteman AS,
    3. Aselcioglu I,
    4. Stern CE
    (2014) Structural differences in hippocampal and prefrontal gray matter volume support flexible context-dependent navigation ability. J Neurosci 34:2314–2320, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2202-13.2014, pmid:24501370.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Ciaramelli E
    (2008) The role of ventromedial prefrontal cortex in navigation: a case of impaired wayfinding and rehabilitation. Neuropsychologia 46:2099–2105, doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.11.029, pmid:18201735.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Koscik TR,
    2. Tranel D
    (2012) The human ventromedial prefrontal cortex is critical for transitive inference. J Cogn Neurosci 24:1191–1204, doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00203, pmid:22288395.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Kroes MC,
    2. Fernández G
    (2012) Dynamic neural systems enable adaptive, flexible memories. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36:1646–1666, doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.014, pmid:22874579.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Navawongse R,
    2. Eichenbaum H
    (2013) Distinct pathways for rule-based retrieval and spatial mapping of memory representations in hippocampal neurons. J Neurosci 33:1002–1013, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3891-12.2013, pmid:23325238.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Philippi CL,
    2. Duff MC,
    3. Denburg NL,
    4. Tranel D,
    5. Rudrauf D
    (2012) Medial PFC damage abolishes the self-reference effect. J Cogn Neurosci 24:475–481, doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00138, pmid:21942762.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Preston AR,
    2. Eichenbaum H
    (2013) Interplay of hippocampus and prefrontal cortex in memory. Curr Biol 23:R764–R773, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.05.041, pmid:24028960.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Tse D,
    2. Langston RF,
    3. Kakeyama M,
    4. Bethus I,
    5. Spooner PA,
    6. Wood ER,
    7. Witter MP,
    8. Morris RG
    (2007) Schemas and memory consolidation. Science 316:76–82, doi:10.1126/science.1135935, pmid:17412951.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. van Kesteren MT,
    2. Ruiter DJ,
    3. Fernández G,
    4. Henson RN
    (2012) How schema and novelty augment memory formation. Trends Neurosci 35:211–219, doi:10.1016/j.tins.2012.02.001, pmid:22398180.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Warren DE,
    2. Jones SH,
    3. Duff MC,
    4. Tranel D
    (2014) False recall is reduced by damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex: implications for understanding the neural correlates of schematic memory. J Neurosci 34:7677–7682, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0119-14.2014, pmid:24872571.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 34 (41)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 34, Issue 41
8 Oct 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Medial Prefrontal Cortex and the Deceptiveness of Memory
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
The Medial Prefrontal Cortex and the Deceptiveness of Memory
Marlieke T.R. van Kesteren, Thackery I. Brown
Journal of Neuroscience 8 October 2014, 34 (41) 13569-13570; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3091-14.2014

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
The Medial Prefrontal Cortex and the Deceptiveness of Memory
Marlieke T.R. van Kesteren, Thackery I. Brown
Journal of Neuroscience 8 October 2014, 34 (41) 13569-13570; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3091-14.2014
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

  • Author Response to van Kesteren et al. Journal Club
    Dr. David E. Warren, Dr. Daniel Tranel and Prof. Melissa C. Duff
    Published on: 27 July 2017
  • Published on: (27 July 2017)
    Author Response to van Kesteren et al. Journal Club
    • Dr. David E. Warren, Author, University of Iowa, Carver College of Medicine
    • Other Contributors:
      • Dr. Daniel Tranel
      • Prof. Melissa C. Duff

    A response to this article may be found here.

    Competing Interests: None declared.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • When to Stop Eating: An Auxiliary Brake on Food Consumption from the Nucleus Accumbens
  • An Auditory Phantom Percept That Does Not Impair External Sound Perception
  • Sharp Wave Ripples in Alzheimer's Disease: In Search of Mechanisms
Show more Journal Club
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2021 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.