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 in
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • 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

Intermediate-Term Memory as a Bridge between Working and Long-Term Memory

Jan Kamiński
Journal of Neuroscience 17 May 2017, 37 (20) 5045-5047; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0604-17.2017
Jan Kamiński
Department of Neurosurgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California 90048, and Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Working memory is the ability to maintain information in an active and readily available state for short periods of time. It is a key component of many cognitive processes, including inference, decision-making, mental calculations, and awareness. One of the dominant models of working memory postulates that memoranda are stored through persistent neuronal activity (Goldman-Rakic, 1995). This model is supported by numerous single-neuron recordings from different brain areas in animals using a variety of paradigms (Constantinidis et al., 2001; Warden and Miller, 2010). Recently, we have corroborated this hypothesis in humans at the single-neuron level (Kamiński et al., 2017). However, results from other studies have led to the proposition of alternative models of working memory. Recently, Lundqvist et al. (2016) recorded local field potentials and single neurons in the prefrontal cortex of macaque monkeys performing a working memory task and found that information in working memory could be maintained through neuronal activity linked to discrete bursts of gamma oscillations. Additionally, Stokes et al. (2013) in another macaque study did not observe stimulus-specific persistent activity in their recordings, and instead suggested that working memory was encoded through complex neuronal dynamics. This led to the proposition that synaptic changes, which are not visible in single-neuron recordings, may represent content held in working memory (the “activity-silent working memory” hypothesis; Stokes, 2015).

In a recent issue of The Journal of Neuroscience, Fiebig and Lansner (2017) presented a simplified neuronal model of cortical layers 2/3 that incorporates features suggested by the experimental work of both Lundqvist et al. (2016) and Stokes et al. (2013). The model proposes that information in working memory is carried by discrete bursts of gamma oscillations rather than by continuous neuronal activity. Additionally, it makes use of a Hebbian form of spike timing-dependent short-term synaptic plasticity to code activity-silent working memories. This last modification is important because it enables the Fiebig and Lansner (2017) network to encode and maintain novel information, which is a fundamental feature of working memory. Indeed, simulations demonstrated that after short (1 s) periods of encoding, the network successfully stored multiple novel items, with each being reactivated in a separate gamma burst. To make the process of encoding mimic how humans memorize lists of items, information was introduced sequentially to the network. Consequently, items that were encoded at the beginning of a sequence had to be maintained for a longer period than other items, but they were exposed to less competition from previously encoded items than from items presented later in the sequence. Although items presented at the end of the sequence were subjected to high competition, their maintenance time was shorter. Consistent with this, analysis of the retrieval performance of the network revealed that items presented at the beginning or end of the sequence were stored better than items encoded in the middle of the sequence. Such effects are observed in behavioral experiments, and they are referred to as primacy (better recall for the beginning of the list) and recency (better recall for the end of the list) effects (Kahana, 2012).

Primacy and recency effects are thought to rely on distinct neural mechanisms and brain regions. For example, in working memory tasks when subjects need to categorize target items as previously seen or not, only the recency effect is observed (Sternberg, 2016). Interestingly, the primacy effect (but not the recency effect) is disrupted in subjects with damage to the medial temporal lobe (MTL), a key structure for forming long-term memories (Hermann et al., 1996). The role of the MTL in the primacy effect has been supported by an fMRI study showing that test items that were presented at the beginning of a list activated the hippocampus more strongly than those presented at the end (Talmi et al., 2005). Because the MTL is a key structure for forming long-term memories, these data support the hypothesis that the primacy effect relies heavily on a long-term memory system even when subjects need to memorize information for only a few seconds. This hypothesis is further supported by additional studies of MTL lesions, as follows: subjects with MTL lesions exhibited deficits in working memory tasks compared with control subjects whenever (1) they were presented with a distractor, (2) they maintained an amount of information close to their working memory capacity, or (3) the maintenance period was longer than a few seconds (Jeneson and Squire, 2012). These results suggest that whenever information held in working memory drops out from the focus of attention, because of distractions or long periods of maintenance, it can be recovered only when an area responsible for encoding declarative long-term memories is intact.

How might this interaction be achieved? One possible solution is presented in the Fiebig and Lansner (2017) model. In their simulation, well established neuronal patterns representing encoded items can be silent (not activated in gamma burst) for up to 8 s yet still be recalled as a result of synaptic plasticity. These simulations further showed that the persistent activity was not crucial for holding the content of working memory because the information in the network was stored for extended periods of time only by means of changing synaptic weights between neurons, which is similar to the mechanism observed during the very first stages of encoding long-term memories. Nevertheless, these synaptic weight changes, as implemented in the model, do not represent true long-term memory processes because they fade away quickly. Because of this property, this model is a hybrid that embodies characteristics of both working memory and long-term memory. This exemplifies the shift in neuroscience from studying working memory alone to realizing that long-term memory processes play a vital role in working memory tasks. Although psychology has long acknowledged that working memory and long-term memory are intimately interconnected (e.g., in the model of working memory by Cowan, 1988), this has only recently started to influence experimental paradigms in cognitive neuroscience.

One of the laboratories using this approach is Bradley Postle's group (Lewis-Peacock et al., 2012; LaRocque et al., 2013; Rose et al., 2016). In a series of experiments, they showed that whenever subjects shifted their focus of attention away from a particular item that is currently maintained in working memory, information about its category (e.g., spatial vs verbal) was no longer decodable using EEG or fMRI signals (Lewis-Peacock et al., 2012; LaRocque et al., 2013; Rose et al., 2016). Interestingly, this information could be reactivated when subjects were instructed to shift attention back to that item. Moreover, the information could be reactivated by transcranial magnetic stimulation, and this reactivation affected later performance (Rose et al., 2016). In a similar fMRI study, subjects memorized the spatial location of items (Sprague et al., 2016). Researchers showed that item location could be decoded using the BOLD signal. Again, when subjects were instructed to shift attention away from one of the items, the corresponding position was no longer decodable. Nevertheless, this information could be reactivated when subjects were instructed to shift their attention back to that item. Together, this shows that information can be maintained in a latent form invisible to both BOLD-fMRI and EEG and that this information can be brought back into an active state when needed. The study by Fiebig and Lansner (2017) indicates that short-term synaptic plasticity is a likely candidate for maintaining this latent state, whereas the active state is represented by spiking neurons.

In this latent state, memories are by definition not actively maintained—a fundamental characteristic of working memory—because they are out of the attentional focus. Neither are these memories permanently hardwired within the neuronal network. Rather, these memories represent a stage between working memory and long-term memory, a stage that molecular neurobiologists (Kandel et al., 2014) refer to as intermediate-term memory (Fig. 1). This intermediate-term memory state starts whenever an item drops out from the focus of attention (and is no longer represented by spiking neurons) and ends when a stable memory is created. Recent shifts in the neuroscientific research of working memory and new results emerging form these experiments led us to reevaluate how we think about memory systems. These new data question the validity of separate multistore systems and instead show that memory is a tightly interconnected continuum.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Intermediate-term memory is a state between working memory and long-term memory. After encoding, an item can be maintained in an active state through spiking activity. Short-term synaptic plasticity (STSP) allows information to be recovered if it temporarily drops out of the focus of attention. STSP also initiates the process of creating a stable memory, which requires longer-lasting processes like gene transcription. Finally, long-term synaptic plasticity (LTSP) creates stable long-term memories. Whenever information in working memory switch state to a latent form, the process of encoding it to long-term memories can be stopped in every stage and information is lost; however, if the process continues, the memory can be brought back to the active state.

Footnotes

  • Editor's Note: These short reviews of recent JNeurosci articles, written exclusively by students or postdoctoral fellows, summarize the important findings of the paper and provide additional insight and commentary. If the authors of the highlighted article have written a response to the Journal Club, the response can be found by viewing the Journal Club at www.jneurosci.org. For more information on the format, review process, and purpose of Journal Club articles, please see http://jneurosci.org/content/preparing-manuscript#journalclub.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Jan Kamiński, 8700 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048. jan.kaminski{at}cshs.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Constantinidis C,
    2. Franowicz MN,
    3. Goldman-Rakic PS
    (2001) The sensory nature of mnemonic representation in the primate prefrontal cortex. Nat Neurosci 4:311–316. doi:10.1038/85179 pmid:11224549
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Cowan N
    (1988) Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system. Psychol Bull 104:163–191. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.104.2.163 pmid:3054993
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Fiebig F,
    2. Lansner A
    (2017) A spiking working memory model based on Hebbian short-term potentiation. J Neurosci 37:83–96. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1989-16.2017 pmid:28053032
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Goldman-Rakic PS
    (1995) Cellular basis of working memory. Neuron 14:477–485. doi:10.1016/0896-6273(95)90304-6 pmid:7695894
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Hermann BP,
    2. Seidenberg M,
    3. Wyler A,
    4. Davies K,
    5. Christeson J,
    6. Moran M,
    7. Stroup E
    (1996) The effects of human hippocampal resection on the serial position curve. Cortex 32:323–334. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(96)80054-2 pmid:8800618
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Jeneson A,
    2. Squire LR
    (2012) Working memory, long-term memory, and medial temporal lobe function. Learn Mem 19:15–25. doi:10.1101/lm.024018.111 pmid:22180053
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Kahana MJ
    (2012) Foundations of human memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford UP.
  8. ↵
    1. Kamiński J,
    2. Sullivan S,
    3. Chung JM,
    4. Ross IB,
    5. Mamelak AN,
    6. Rutishauser U
    (2017) Persistently active neurons in human medial frontal and medial temporal lobe support working memory. Nat Neurosci 20:590–601. doi:10.1038/nn.4509 pmid:28218914
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Kandel ER,
    2. Dudai Y,
    3. Mayford MR
    (2014) The molecular and systems biology of memory. Cell 157:163–186. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.001 pmid:24679534
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. LaRocque JJ,
    2. Lewis-Peacock JA,
    3. Drysdale AT,
    4. Oberauer K,
    5. Postle BR
    (2013) Decoding attended information in short-term memory: an EEG study. J Cogn Neurosci 25:127–142. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00305 pmid:23198894
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Lewis-Peacock JA,
    2. Drysdale AT,
    3. Oberauer K,
    4. Postle BR
    (2012) Neural evidence for a distinction between short-term memory and the focus of attention. J Cogn Neurosci 24:61–79. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00140 pmid:21955164
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Lundqvist M,
    2. Rose J,
    3. Herman P,
    4. Brincat SL,
    5. Buschman TJ,
    6. Miller EK
    (2016) Gamma and beta bursts underlie working memory. Neuron 90:152–164. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.02.028 pmid:26996084
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Rose NS,
    2. LaRocque JJ,
    3. Riggall AC,
    4. Gosseries O,
    5. Starrett MJ,
    6. Meyering EE,
    7. Postle BR
    (2016) Reactivation of latent working memories with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Science 354:1136–1139. doi:10.1126/science.aah7011 pmid:27934762
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Sprague TC,
    2. Ester EF,
    3. Serences JT
    (2016) Restoring latent visual working memory representations in human cortex. Neuron 91:694–707. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.07.006 pmid:27497224
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Sternberg S
    (2016) In defence of high-speed memory scanning. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 69:2020–2075. doi:10.1080/17470218.2016.1198820 pmid:27557823
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Stokes MG
    (2015) “Activity-silent” working memory in prefrontal cortex: a dynamic coding framework. Trends Cogn Sci 19:394–405. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.05.004 pmid:26051384
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Stokes MG,
    2. Kusunoki M,
    3. Sigala N,
    4. Nili H,
    5. Gaffan D,
    6. Duncan J
    (2013) Dynamic coding for cognitive control in prefrontal cortex. Neuron 78:364–375. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.01.039 pmid:23562541
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Talmi D,
    2. Grady CL,
    3. Goshen-Gottstein Y,
    4. Moscovitch M
    (2005) Neuroimaging the serial position curve: a test of single-store versus dual-store models. Psychol Sci 16:716–723. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01601.x pmid:16137258
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Warden MR,
    2. Miller EK
    (2010) Task-dependent changes in short-term memory in the prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci 30:15801–15810. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1569-10.2010 pmid:21106819
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 37 (20)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 37, Issue 20
17 May 2017
  • 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.
Intermediate-Term Memory as a Bridge between Working and Long-Term 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
Intermediate-Term Memory as a Bridge between Working and Long-Term Memory
Jan Kamiński
Journal of Neuroscience 17 May 2017, 37 (20) 5045-5047; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0604-17.2017

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
Intermediate-Term Memory as a Bridge between Working and Long-Term Memory
Jan Kamiński
Journal of Neuroscience 17 May 2017, 37 (20) 5045-5047; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0604-17.2017
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
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

  • Author Response to Kamiński Journal Club
    Florian Fiebig and Anders Lansner
    Published on: 17 May 2017
  • Published on: (17 May 2017)
    Author Response to Kamiński Journal Club
    • Florian Fiebig, Author, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm
    • Other Contributors:
      • Anders Lansner

    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.