Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

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

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Research Articles, Behavioral/Cognitive

The Assimilation of Novel Information into Schemata and Its Efficient Consolidation

Tobias Sommer, Nora Hennies, Penelope A. Lewis and Arjen Alink
Journal of Neuroscience 27 July 2022, 42 (30) 5916-5929; https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2373-21.2022
Tobias Sommer
1Institute of Systems Neuroscience, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, 20246, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Tobias Sommer
Nora Hennies
1Institute of Systems Neuroscience, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, 20246, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Penelope A. Lewis
2CUBRIC, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 4HQ, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Arjen Alink
1Institute of Systems Neuroscience, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, 20246, Germany
  • 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

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    Schema and timeline of the experiment. A, Hierarchical structure of one of the two schemata (arthropods) and exemplar names of the other schema (cells) which served as control in this example. Schema and control were randomized across participants. For a figure with the hierarchical structure of the “cell” schema, see Hennies et al. (2016). B, Acquisition of schema-knowledge and familiarization with the control names over 7 weeks with 1 learning session per week in the institute and homework in-between. Participants achieved high performance in the multiple-choice questions (mc questions) and the picture naming task of their schema. In the scanner, participants encoded 3 times (encoding Rounds 1-3) 72 novel facts related to the exemplars of their schema and 72 facts related to their control exemplars. In encoding Rounds 4-7 outside of the scanner, they only repeated the control facts to ensure equal immediate memory for SR and control facts. In the first encoding round, participants judged whether they will remember the novel facts in Rounds 2-7 whether they did remember it. Encoding was followed by immediate retrieval of all learned novel facts in the scanner. Two weeks later, all facts were retrieved again in the scanner followed by retrieval of 24 of the overlearned schema-knowledge facts. During retrieval, two equally plausible response alternatives were presented (targets and lures were randomized across participants) and participants indicated their confidence on a 3 point scale (hc, high; mc, medium; lc, low confidence).

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Behavioral results. A, Encoding Rounds 1-3 for novel SR and control facts took place in the MR scanner, Rounds 4-7 only for control facts outside of the scanner. In the first round, participants rated whether they will remember the fact (judgment of learning) and in Rounds 2-7 whether they did remember the fact (judgment of memory). B, Response times for the judgment of learning (Round 1), respectively, judgment of memory (Rounds 2-7) during encoding. C, Proportion of high (hc), medium (mc), and low confident (lc) hits (relative to all responses in that delay × schema condition) during immediate and delayed retrieval for the SR and control facts as well as for the subset of facts of the schema-knowledge only during delayed retrieval. D, Retrieval times for high, medium, and low confident hits during retrieval. Error bars indicate SEM around the mean, corrected for interindividual differences (Loftus and Masson, 1994).

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Activity related to retrieval of the overlearned schema-knowledge and to the encoding of novel SR and control facts. A, Activity during retrieval of the overlearned schema–knowledge (after the delayed retrieval of the novel SR and control facts) was greater in the ventrolateral PFC (and other areas) compared with immediate retrieval of novel SR facts (red bar). Activity during retrieval of schema-knowledge was statistically contrasted against immediate retrieval of SR facts because response times were similar in both conditions (see Fig. 2D). Activity in the other three conditions (immediate retrieval of control facts as well as delayed retrieval of SR and control facts) in this voxel is plotted in transparent bars because it was not statistically tested against retrieval of schema-knowledge. B, During encoding of novel SR (red bars) than control (NS, blue bars) facts, activity was greater in the vmPFC and the vPC/RSC. C, Coupling differences between encoding SR and control facts. The vmPFC was more strongly coupled with the hippocampus and fusiform gyrus during encoding of SR than control (NS) facts in the three rounds. Error bars indicate SEM around the mean, corrected for interindividual differences (Loftus and Masson, 1994). Visualization threshold p < 0.001, uncorrected.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Activity differences during retrieval. A, During immediate and delayed retrieval of SR (red bars), facts activity was greater in the vmPFC and the vPC/RSC. B, The difference in coupling of the vmPFC with the precuneus during retrieval of SR and control (NS) facts increased from immediate to delayed retrieval. C, The vmPFC (subgenual ACC) and the hippocampus showed a larger activity increase from immediate to delayed retrieval of SR (red bars) than control (NS, blue bars) facts. Error bars indicate SEM around the mean, corrected for interindividual differences (Loftus and Masson, 1994). Visualization threshold p < 0.001, uncorrected.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Encoding–encoding similarity (pattern robustness). A, Encoding–encoding similarity between succeeding rounds was greater for novel SR (red bars) than control facts (NS, blue bars) in the right IFG (left). The overall sensitivity of this approach is visualized in A (right) in terms of the main effect. B, Encoding–encoding similarity between the first two rounds was greater in early visual cortex (left) and between Rounds 2 and 3 in the precuneus (left) for novel SR than control facts (NS). The IFG and cuneus cluster are not significant corrected for multiple comparisons and are reported for exploratory reasons. Error bars indicate SEM around the mean, corrected for interindividual differences (Loftus and Masson, 1994). Visualization threshold p < 0.001, uncorrected.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Encoding operation similarity. A, Encoding-operation similarity within rounds was early in learning greater between encoding of novel SR (SR-SR, red bars) than between SR and control (SR-NS, blue bars) facts in the vPC/RSC, vmPFC, and the bilateral angular gyrus. B, Encoding-operation similarity between rounds during encoding of novel-related (SR-SR) facts was also greater compared with SR-NS facts in the vPC/RSC and vmPFC. C, Operation similarity between encoding of SR facts and retrieval of schema-knowledge was also greater compared with the encoding of control facts in the vPC/RSC and vmPFC. Error bars indicate SEM around the mean, corrected for interindividual differences (Loftus and Masson, 1994). Visualization threshold p < 0.001, uncorrected.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Univariate fMRI resultsa

    ContrastAreaxyz coordinate peak voxelZ value peak voxel
    Encoding
        SR > NS main effectvmPFC0, 54, −154.34
    vPC/RSC−9, −57, 156.36
    12, −57, 184.67
    Superior parietal cortex−36, −78, 395.34
    48, −72, 334.79*
    Post cingulate cortex−3, −36, 334.81
        NS > SR main effectFrontal pole−30, 51, 215.00
    36, 54, 185.32
    ACC6, 36, 185.69
    Occipital pole9, −81, −36.94
    Lateral occipital cortex−45, −78, 04.85
    33, −90, −94.78
        SR > NS increase across roundsSupramarginal gyrus57, −39, 244.95
    IFG/insula−51, −6, 04.82
    54, 12, −34.88
    ACC−3, 33, 154.93
        SR > NS decrease across roundsvmPFC−3, 51, −324.70
    vPC/RSC−12, −57, 154.09
    Dorsal medial PFC−3, 36, 396.07
    IFG−45, 39, −125.92
    Dorsolateral PFC−42, 15, 424.88
        PPI SR > NS seed vmPFC main effectHippocampus−21, −24, −153.99
    Fusiform gyrus−30, −57, −155.33
    33, −54, −126.00
    IFG48, 36, 35.63
    Superior parietal cortex15, −66, 515.04
    33, −42, 424.91
    Dorsal precuneus−9, −39, 575.03
    −9, −69, 514.89
    Supramarginal gyrus−57, −45, 274.98
        PPI SR > NS seed vmPFC decrease across roundsHippocampus−27, −21, −213.63
    15, −12, −215.09
    Dorsal precuneus9, −63, 516.69
    Retrieval
        SR > NSvmPFC3, 30, −214.57
    vPC/RSC−9, −57, 156.49
    9, −54, 155.68
        NS > SRACC−6, 33, 215.06
    Insula−39, 15, −94.97
    33, 18, −154.46*
    Frontal pole24, 57, −34.66
        Increase SR > NSvmPFC−6, 18, −93.76
    Hippocampus27, −24, −153.74
        PPI increase SR > NR seed vmPFCvPC15, −48, 334.23
    Schema-knowledge
        Schema retrieval > immediate novel SR retrievalVentrolateral PFC−42, 9, 303.99
    ACC9, 18, 395.31
    vPC21, −66, 35.04
    Insula30, 24, −95.09
    −30, 24, −64.96
    Ventral striatum−18, 9, −64.84
    18, 25, −65.58
    • ↵aPeak coordinates in MNI space. Correction for multiple comparisons was done on the whole-brain level or within predefined anatomic ROIs, specifically the hippocampus, precuneus/RSC, and vmPFC.

    • ↵*Trend toward significance.

Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 42 (30)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 42, Issue 30
27 Jul 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Masthead (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 Assimilation of Novel Information into Schemata and Its Efficient Consolidation
(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 Assimilation of Novel Information into Schemata and Its Efficient Consolidation
Tobias Sommer, Nora Hennies, Penelope A. Lewis, Arjen Alink
Journal of Neuroscience 27 July 2022, 42 (30) 5916-5929; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2373-21.2022

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 Assimilation of Novel Information into Schemata and Its Efficient Consolidation
Tobias Sommer, Nora Hennies, Penelope A. Lewis, Arjen Alink
Journal of Neuroscience 27 July 2022, 42 (30) 5916-5929; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2373-21.2022
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • assimilation
  • consolidation
  • prior knowledge
  • schema
  • ventromedial PFC

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Articles

  • NEOCORTICAL AND HIPPOCAMPAL THETA OSCILLATIONS TRACK AUDIOVISUAL INTEGRATION AND REPLAY OF SPEECH MEMORIES
  • Anchoring functional connectivity to individual sulcal morphology yields insights in a pediatric study of reasoning
  • Chemogenetic disruption of monkey perirhinal neurons projecting to rostromedial caudate impairs associative learning
Show more Research Articles

Behavioral/Cognitive

  • NEOCORTICAL AND HIPPOCAMPAL THETA OSCILLATIONS TRACK AUDIOVISUAL INTEGRATION AND REPLAY OF SPEECH MEMORIES
  • Anchoring functional connectivity to individual sulcal morphology yields insights in a pediatric study of reasoning
  • Electrophysiological Correlates of Lucid Dreaming: Sensor and Source Level Signatures
Show more Behavioral/Cognitive
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • 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 Notice
  • Contact
  • Accessibility
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 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.