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
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • 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
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Research Articles, Behavioral/Cognitive

Concurrent- and After-Effects of Medial Temporal Lobe Stimulation on Directed Information Flow to and from Prefrontal and Parietal Cortices during Memory Formation

Anup Das and Vinod Menon
Journal of Neuroscience 26 April 2023, 43 (17) 3159-3175; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1728-22.2023
Anup Das
1Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Anup Das
Vinod Menon
1Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences
2Department of Neurology & Neurological Sciences
3Stanford Neurosciences Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305
  • 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

Abstract

Electrical stimulation of the medial temporal lobe (MTL) has the potential to uncover causal circuit mechanisms underlying memory function. However, little is known about how MTL stimulation alters information flow with frontoparietal cortical regions implicated in episodic memory. We used intracranial EEG recordings from humans (14 participants, 10 females) to investigate how MTL stimulation alters directed information flow between MTL and PFC and between MTL and posterior parietal cortex (PPC). Participants performed a verbal episodic memory task during which they were presented with words and asked to recall them after a delay of ∼20 s; 50 Hz stimulation was applied to MTL electrodes on selected trials during memory encoding. Directed information flow was examined using phase transfer entropy. Behaviorally, we observed that MTL stimulation reduced memory recall. MTL stimulation decreased top-down PFC→MTL directed information flow during both memory encoding and subsequent memory recall, revealing aftereffects more than 20 s after end of stimulation. Stimulation suppressed top-down PFC→MTL influences to a greater extent than PPC→MTL. Finally, MTL→PFC information flow on stimulation trials was significantly lower for successful, compared with unsuccessful, memory recall; in contrast, MTL→ventral PPC information flow was higher for successful, compared with unsuccessful, memory recall. Together, these results demonstrate that the effects of MTL stimulation are behaviorally, regionally, and directionally specific, that MTL stimulation selectively impairs directional signaling with PFC, and that causal MTL-ventral PPC circuits support successful memory recall. Findings provide new insights into dynamic casual circuits underling episodic memory and their modulation by MTL stimulation.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT The medial temporal lobe (MTL) and its interactions with prefrontal and parietal cortices (PFC and PPC) play a critical role in human memory. Dysfunctional MTL-PFC and MTL-PPC circuits are prominent in psychiatric and neurologic disorders, including Alzheimer's disease and schizophrenia. Brain stimulation has emerged as a potential mechanism for enhancing memory and cognitive functions, but the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms and dynamic causal circuitry underlying bottom-up and top-down signaling involving the MTL are unknown. Here, we use intracranial EEG recordings to investigate the effects of MTL stimulation on causal signaling in key episodic memory circuits linking the MTL with PFC and PPC. Our findings have implications for translational applications aimed at realizing the promise of brain stimulation-based treatment of memory disorders.

  • causal circuits in episodic memory
  • deep brain stimulation
  • directed information flow
  • human intracranial EEG
  • medial temporal lobe
  • prefrontal and parietal cortices

Introduction

The medial temporal lobe (MTL) and its interactions with prefrontal cortex (PFC) play a foundational role in human memory (Vogt and Pandya, 1987; Wagner et al., 2005; Curtis, 2006; Husain and Nachev, 2007; Cabeza et al., 2008; Eichenbaum, 2017; Rolls, 2018, 2019; Rutishauser et al., 2021; Amer and Davachi, 2022). Dysfunctional MTL-PFC circuits are prominent in psychiatric and neurologic disorders, including Alzheimer's disease and schizophrenia (Meyer-Lindenberg et al., 2005; Dickerson and Eichenbaum, 2010; Uhlhaas and Singer, 2012). Brain stimulation has emerged as a potential mechanism for enhancing memory function (Fell et al., 2013; J. X. Wang et al., 2014; Ezzyat et al., 2018; Kucewicz et al., 2018b; Alagapan et al., 2019; Yeh and Rose, 2019; van der Plas et al., 2021) and cognitive function (Ramirez-Zamora et al., 2020; Grover et al., 2021), but the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms and dynamic causal circuitry underlying bottom-up and top-down signaling involving the MTL are poorly understood. Given its critical role in memory formation, deep brain stimulation of the MTL with simultaneous recordings in the MTL and PFC has the potential to inform causal circuit mechanisms of encoding and recall in the human brain. Here, we use intracranial EEG (iEEG) recordings to investigate the effects of MTL stimulation on causal signaling in key episodic memory circuits linking the MTL with PFC.

Electrophysiological studies in rodents have reported greater information flow from the MTL to the mPFC than the reverse during spatial working memory (Zhang et al., 2022). In nonhuman primates, MTL-dorsolateral and -ventrolateral PFC interactions have been linked with memory performance (Brincat and Miller, 2015; Cruzado et al., 2020). In humans, fMRI studies have consistently found coactivation of the MTL and multiple PFC regions during both spatial and verbal memory tasks (Dobbins et al., 2002; Simons and Spiers, 2003; Dickerson and Eichenbaum, 2010; Rugg and Vilberg, 2013; Qin et al., 2014; Moscovitch et al., 2016). Moreover, MTL-ventromedial PFC coactivation is also associated with better memory performance (Kumaran et al., 2009). Other studies have shown that functional connectivity between the MTL and mPFC is also associated with memory recall (van Kesteren et al., 2010; Preston and Eichenbaum, 2013; Qin et al., 2014). Furthermore, noninvasive MEG studies in humans have suggested that coherence between the MTL and the superior frontal gyrus and mPFC subdivisions in the delta-theta frequency band is associated with successful memory integration (Guitart-Masip et al., 2013; Backus et al., 2016; Spaak and de Lange, 2020). iEEG studies in humans have reported increased MTL-dorsolateral and -ventrolateral PFC theta band synchronization during episodic memory encoding and recall compared with resting baseline conditions (Anderson et al., 2010; Watrous et al., 2013; Ekstrom and Watrous, 2014; Das and Menon, 2021).

Although prior noninvasive studies have provided significant insights into the role of the MTL and PFC in human episodic memory processing, the causal effects of brain stimulation on the electrophysiology of dynamic “bottom-up” and “top-down” interactions involving the PFC remain unknown. While noninvasive transcranial magnetic stimulation can be used to transiently alter neural processing in targeted cortical regions (J. X. Wang et al., 2014; Yeh and Rose, 2019), it cannot precisely target deep brain structures, such as the MTL (Rossini and Rossi, 2007; Kim et al., 2016). Intracranial electrical stimulation provides an alternative approach that can more precisely map functional brain circuits (Mohan et al., 2020; Paulk et al., 2022) and assess the neurophysiological basis of cognitive processes and its causal basis (Grover et al., 2021; Huang and Keller, 2022; Mercier et al., 2022).

We recently found evidence for asymmetric frequency-specific feedforward and feedback information flow between hippocampus and PFC during memory formation (Das and Menon, 2021). Specifically, we found higher directed information flow from the MTL to the PFC than the reverse, in delta-theta frequency band and higher directed information flow from the PFC to the MTL, than the reverse, in the beta frequency band (Das and Menon, 2021, 2022). Crucially, these findings were observed during both memory encoding and recall periods, indicating a prominent role of delta-theta for “bottom-up” signaling and beta for “top-down” signaling in the cortex.

Here we use iEEG data from the University of Pennsylvania Restoring Active Memory (UPENN-RAM) Consortium (Jacobs et al., 2016; Goyal et al., 2018) to investigate how MTL stimulation alters directed information flow between the MTL and the PFC during episodic memory processing. Participants were presented a list of words during the encoding period and, after a short delay, were asked to recall as many words as possible from the list. During encoding, stimulation was applied at 50 Hz to select MTL electrodes on alternate word pairs, and memory recall was probed after a ∼20 s delay period. The choice of 50 Hz stimulation frequency was motivated by its overlap with the gamma band (30-80 Hz), which has been associated with human episodic memory; and the amplitude of iEEG fluctuations in this frequency band has been shown to reflect the underlying activity of single neurons (Kahana, 2006; Lachaux et al., 2012; Kucewicz et al., 2014). Moreover, previous studies have reported that MTL stimulation applied in the 40-50 Hz range has a direct impact on memory performance (Suthana et al., 2012; Fell et al., 2013; Inman et al., 2018). We investigated how MTL stimulation alters its information flow with the PFC. We used phase transfer entropy (PTE) (Lobier et al., 2014; Hillebrand et al., 2016; M. Y. Wang et al., 2017), which provides a robust and powerful measure for characterizing information flow between brain regions based on phase coupling; and crucially, it captures linear as well as nonlinear intermittent and nonstationary dynamics in iEEG data (Menon et al., 1996; Lobier et al., 2014; Hillebrand et al., 2016).

The main goal of our study was to investigate how MTL stimulation alters directed information flow between the MTL and the PFC. We build on our recent findings of asymmetric frequency-dependent directed information flow focused on the delta-theta (0.5-8 Hz) and beta (12-30 Hz) frequency bands (Das and Menon, 2021, 2022). Our analysis focused on the middle frontal gyrus (MFG) encompassing the dorsolateral PFC regions implicated in memory formation and monitoring (Chua and Ahmed, 2016; Rugg, 2022). We contrast this with MTL interactions with the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) encompassing the ventrolateral PFC regions, which has been implicated in controlled retrieval (Hasegawa et al., 1999; Wagner et al., 2001; Dobbins et al., 2002; Badre et al., 2005; Badre and Wagner, 2007).

The second goal of our study was to determine whether bottom-up and top-down information flow between the MTL and the PFC and posterior parietal cortex (PPC) is similarly impacted by MTL stimulation. Multiple lines of evidence across species have revealed a role for the PPC in episodic memory (Wagner et al., 2005; Cabeza, 2008; Cabeza et al., 2008, 2011, 2012; Hutchinson et al., 2009; Uncapher and Wagner, 2009). Anterograde and retrograde tracing studies in nonhuman primates have uncovered projections from the MTL to the PPC (Clower et al., 2001; Insausti and Muñoz, 2001) and in the reverse direction (Rockland and Van Hoesen, 1999). Single-neuron studies in rodents (Chen et al., 1994; McNaughton et al., 1994; Nitz, 2006) as well as nonhuman primates (Andersen et al., 1985; Crowe et al., 2004) have established PPC involvement in spatial memory. fMRI studies in nonhuman primates have reported coactivation of the MTL and PPC during successful memory encoding and recall (Miyamoto et al., 2013).

Studies using resting-state fMRI in humans have confirmed intrinsic MTL connectivity with the PPC (Vincent et al., 2006). Other human fMRI studies have reported dorsal PPC (dPPC) activation during episodic memory retrieval (Buckner et al., 1998; Konishi et al., 2000), spatial memory processing (Amorapanth et al., 2010; Baumann et al., 2012), and coactivation of the hippocampus and multiple subdivisions of the PPC during episodic and semantic memory encoding and retrieval (Gurd et al., 2002; Vincent et al., 2006; Ciaramelli et al., 2020). The dPPC is involved in top-down attention processing during memory encoding (Cabeza, 2008; Ciaramelli et al., 2008; Daselaar et al., 2009; Hutchinson et al., 2009; Uncapher and Wagner, 2009; Cabeza et al., 2011, 2012). Human electrocorticography studies have suggested a role for the PPC in verbal episodic memory encoding and recall (Gonzalez et al., 2015), and human iEEG studies have found that hippocampus-PPC correlation in the theta frequency band is prominent in spatial memory (Ekstrom et al., 2005). Together, these findings suggest that coordinated interactions between the MTL and PPC play a role in episodic memory. However, the causal role of MTL-PPC circuits remains poorly understood, and it is not known whether MTL stimulation alters directed information flow between MTL and PPC differently from the PFC.

Our analyses reveal how MTL stimulation alters frequency-specific bottom-up and top-down information flow between the MTL and PFC and how this differs from PPC regions implicated in human episodic memory. Findings provide new insights into causal mechanisms involved in the operation of human episodic memory circuits.

Materials and Methods

UPENN-RAM iEEG recordings

iEEG recordings from 14 patients (10 females, 4 males) shared by Kahana and colleagues at the UPENN (obtained from the UPENN-RAM public data release) were used for analysis (Jacobs et al., 2016; Goyal et al., 2018). Patients with pharmaco-resistant epilepsy underwent surgery for removal of their seizure onset zones. iEEG recordings of these patients were downloaded from a UPENN-RAM consortium hosted data sharing archive (URL: http://memory.psych.upenn.edu/RAM). Before data collection, research protocols and ethical guidelines were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the participating hospitals; and informed consent was obtained from the participants and guardians (Jacobs et al., 2016). Details of all the recordings sessions and data preprocessing procedures are described by Kahana and colleagues (Jacobs et al., 2016). Briefly, iEEG recordings were obtained using subdural grids and strips (contacts placed 10 mm apart) or depth electrodes (contacts spaced 5-10 mm apart) using recording systems at each clinical site. iEEG systems included DeltaMed XlTek (Natus), Grass Telefactor, and Nihon-Kohden EEG systems. These patients performed a verbal episodic memory task (see below) and received direct brain stimulation during some of the encoding trials. Electrodes located in brain lesions or those which corresponded to seizure onset zones or had significant interictal spiking or had broken leads, were excluded from analysis.

Anatomical localization of electrode placement was accomplished by coregistering the postoperative computed CTs with the postoperative MRIs using FSL (FMRIB [Functional MRI of the Brain] Software Library), BET (Brain Extraction Tool), and FLIRT (FMRIB Linear Image Registration Tool) software packages. Preoperative MRIs were used when postoperative MRIs were not available. The resulting contact locations were mapped to MNI space using an indirect stereotactic technique and OsiriX Imaging Software DICOM viewer package. We used the Brainnetome atlas (Fan et al., 2016) to demarcate bihemispheric middle and inferior frontal gyrus subdivisions of the prefrontal cortex (MFG and IFG) and dorsal and ventral subdivisions of the posterior parietal cortex (dPPC and vPPC) as well as the hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, and entorhinal cortex subdivisions of the MTL. We first identified electrode pairs in patients with electrodes implanted in each pair of brain regions of interest (e.g., MTL-MFG). Key PPC ROIs included the superior parietal lobule, and supramarginal gyrus, intraparietal sulcus, and angular gyrus in the inferior parietal lobule, spanning its dorsal-ventral axis. The lack of sufficient number of participants and electrode pairs precluded analyses of these subdivisions separately. We therefore combined electrodes from the superior parietal lobule, intraparietal sulcus, and supramarginal gyrus into a dPPC subdivision and the angular gyrus regions into a vPPC subdivision (see Tables 2, 3). Ages of these patients ranged from 20 to 49 years, with mean age 36.0 ± 10.1 years, and the dataset included 10 females. Gender differences were not analyzed in this study because of lack of sufficient male participants for electrodes pairs for MTL-MFG, MTL-IFG, MTL-dPPC, and MTL-vPPC interactions (see Table 2).

Original sampling rates of iEEG signals were 500, 1000, and 1600 Hz. Hence, iEEG signals were downsampled to 500 Hz, if the original sampling rate was higher, for all subsequent analysis. The two major concerns when analyzing interactions between closely spaced intracranial electrodes are volume conduction and confounding interactions with the reference electrode (Burke et al., 2013). Hence, bipolar referencing was used to eliminate confounding artifacts and improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the neural signals, consistent with previous studies using UPENN-RAM iEEG data (Burke et al., 2013; Ezzyat et al., 2018). Signals recorded at individual electrodes were converted to a bipolar montage by computing the difference in signal between adjacent electrode pairs on each strip, grid, and depth electrode; and the resulting bipolar signals were treated as new “virtual” electrodes originating from the midpoint between each contact pair, identical to procedures in previous studies using UPENN-RAM data (Solomon et al., 2019). Line noise (60 Hz) and its harmonics were removed from the bipolar signals; and finally, each bipolar signal was Z-normalized by removing mean and scaling by the standard deviation. For filtering, we used a fourth-order two-way zero phase lag Butterworth filter throughout the analysis.

iEEG verbal free recall task and stimulation paradigm

Patients performed multiple trials of a free recall experiment, where they were presented with a list of words and subsequently asked to recall as many as possible from the original list (see Fig. 1c) (Solomon et al., 2017, 2019). Each session consisted of 25 lists. The task consisted of three periods: encoding, delay, and recall. During encoding, a list of 12 words was visually presented for ∼30 s. Words were selected at random, without replacement, from a pool of high-frequency English nouns (http://memory.psych.upenn.edu/Word_Pools). Each word was presented for a duration of 1600 ms, followed by an interstimulus interval of 800-1200 ms. After a 20 s postencoding delay where participants performed a series of distractor tasks consisting of arithmetic problems of the form a + b + c = ?, where a, b, and, c were randomly chosen integers from 1 to 9, participants were instructed to recall as many words as possible during the 30 s recall period.

For each subject, a selected electrode pair in the MTL was connected to an electrical stimulator (Grass Technologies or Blackrock Microsystems) and stimulation was applied using parameters from a prior study (Suthana et al., 2012), showing a positive effect of stimulation on memory performance. Subjects were instructed about the stimulation procedure but were blinded to the location of the stimulation sites. Bipolar-symmetric, charge-balanced, square-wave stimulation current between a pair of electrodes was applied at 50 Hz and 300 µs pulse-width. All the stimulation electrodes in the present study were depth electrodes. Safe amplitude for stimulation was determined at the start of each session under a clinically supervised mapping procedure by manually testing a range of currents for each site, beginning at 0.25 mA and slowly increasing to a maximum of 1.5 mA. The final stimulation current (see Table 1) that was used for the cognitive experiments was the maximum current for each site that could be applied without inducing patient symptoms, epileptiform after discharges, or seizures. We designated a stimulation site being in the MTL if at least one electrode of the bipolar pair was in the region.

For the stimulated lists, exactly half of the words on the list were delivered simultaneously with electrical brain stimulation. For the control lists, all 12 words on the list were presented without stimulation. Out of the 25 lists in each session, 20 were stimulated lists and 5 were control lists in a randomly assigned order. For each stimulated list, stimulation occurred in a blocked pattern: the stimulator was active during the presentation of a pair of consecutive words and then inactive for the following pair. Thus, in total, on each stimulated list, the stimulator was active for half the total words. For the stimulation blocks, the stimulator was timed to occur 200 ms before the presentation of the first word in each block, continuing for 4.6 s, until the disappearance of the second word. The onset of stimulation was balanced, such that a random half of the stimulation lists began with a nonstimulated block and the others began with a stimulated block.

We analyzed 1600 ms iEEG epochs from the encoding periods of the free recall task. For the recall periods, iEEG recordings 1600 ms before the vocal onset of each word were analyzed (Solomon et al., 2019). Data from each trial were analyzed separately, and specific measures were averaged across trials. Effects of electrical stimulation on behavioral performance have been analyzed in detail by Kahana and colleagues previously (Jacobs et al., 2016; Goyal et al., 2018). Our major focus in this study was on the effect of stimulation on the direction of information flow between the MTL and the PFC and PPC. The mismatch in the number of trials between successfully versus unsuccessfully encoded words (∼1:3) made it difficult to directly compare causal signaling measures associated with the two. From the point of view of probing behaviorally effective memory encoding, our focus was therefore on how MTL stimulation affects successful encoding and recall, consistent with most prior studies (Watrous et al., 2013; Long et al., 2014). For stimulation trials, data corresponding to the pair of words immediately succeeding the stimulated word pair were analyzed. Data corresponding to the stimulated word pair were excluded from analysis to prevent contamination with stimulation artifact (Hansen et al., 2018; Kucewicz et al., 2018b; Jun et al., 2020).

Control analysis using resting-state iEEG data with MTL stimulation

For the control condition, we used “resting-state” data from 2 participants collected in the UPENN-RAM public data release (Solomon et al., 2021). These patients were part of a larger “parameter search” project whose major goal was to systematically study the effects of stimulation frequency, current, and stimulation brain regions (Mohan et al., 2020). We reanalyzed iEEG data from these participants to determine whether the main findings of directed information flow between the MTL and the PFC and PPC in our study were because of brain stimulation causing reorganization of brain circuits and thus influencing the information flow that we observed in the memory task. Similar to the memory task, bipolar-symmetric, charge-balanced, square-wave stimulation current between a pair of depth MTL electrodes was applied at 50 Hz and 300 µs pulse-width (also see Table 5). Similar procedures were adopted for determining the safe current amplitude for stimulation for these participants. Based on electrode placement in the MTL and the PFC and PPC brain regions and based on the criteria that the stimulation frequency was 50 Hz, we selected 2 subjects with simultaneous electrode placements in MTL and MFG (105 electrode pairs) and also MTL and dPPC (60 electrode pairs). IFG and vPPC were excluded from analysis because of lack of electrode placements in these regions. The stimulation duration for these 2 subjects were 250 and 500 ms (see Table 5).

We analyzed 1600 ms iEEG epochs immediately before the start of each stimulation trial; these correspond to the “non-stim” condition. We also analyzed 1600 ms iEEG epochs immediately after the end of each stimulation trial; these correspond to the “stim” condition. Trials were spaced by 3 s, with up to ±200 ms of randomly applied jitter added to the interval. Subjects were instructed to sit quietly and did not perform any task. Similar to the memory task, data from each trial were analyzed separately and PTE measures were averaged across trials. Data corresponding to the stimulated epochs were excluded from analysis to prevent contamination with stimulation artifact (Hansen et al., 2018; Kucewicz et al., 2018b; Jun et al., 2020).

iEEG analysis of power

For power analysis, we first filtered the signals in the delta-theta (0.5-8 Hz) and beta (12-30 Hz) frequency bands and then calculated the square of the filtered signals as the power of the signals (Kwon et al., 2021). Signals were then smoothed using 0.2 s windows with 90% overlap (Kwon et al., 2021) and normalized with respect to 0.2 s prestimulus periods.

iEEG analysis of PTE and direction of information flow

PTE is a nonlinear measure of the directionality of information flow between time-series and can be applied to nonstationary time-series (Lobier et al., 2014; Das and Menon, 2020). The information flow described here relates to signaling between brain areas and does not necessarily reflect the representation or coding of behaviorally relevant variables per se. The PTE measure is in contrast to the Granger causality measure which can be applied only to stationary time-series (Barnett and Seth, 2014). We first conducted a stationarity test of the iEEG recordings (unit root test for stationarity) (Barnett and Seth, 2014) and found that the spectral radius of the autoregressive model is very close to 1, indicating that the iEEG time-series is nonstationary. This precluded the applicability of the Granger causality analysis in our study.

Given two time-series {xi} and {yi}, where i=1,2,...,M, instantaneous phases were first extracted using the Hilbert transform. Let {xip} and {yip}, where i=1,2,...,M, denote the corresponding phase time-series. If the uncertainty of the target signal {yip} at delay τ is quantified using Shannon entropy, then the PTE from driver signal {xip} to target signal {yip} can be given by the following: PTEx→y=∑ip(yi+τp,yip,xip)log(p(yi+τp|yip,xip)p(yi+τp|yip)), where the probabilities can be calculated by building histograms of occurrences of singles, pairs, or triplets of instantaneous phase estimates from the phase time-series (Hillebrand et al., 2016). For our analysis, the number of bins in the histograms was set as 3.49 × STD × M–1/3 and delay τ was set as 2M/M±, where STD is average standard deviation of the phase time-series {xip} and {yip} and M± is the number of times the phase changes sign across time and channels (Hillebrand et al., 2016). PTE has been shown to be robust against the choice of the delay τ and the number of bins for forming the histograms (Hillebrand et al., 2016).

iEEG analysis of phase-locking value (PLV) and phase synchronization

We used PLV to compute phase synchronization between two time-series (Lachaux et al., 1999). We first calculated the instantaneous phases of the two signals by using the analytical signal approach based on the Hilbert transform (Bruns, 2004). Given time-series x(t),t=1,2,...,M, its complex valued analytical signal z(t) can be computed as follows: z(t)=x(t) +ix̃(t)=Ax(t)eΦx(t),(1) where i denotes the square root of –1, x̃(t) is the Hilbert transform of x(t), and Ax(t) and Φx(t) are the instantaneous amplitude and instantaneous phase, respectively, and can be given by the following: Ax(t)=[x(t)]2 + [x̃(t)]2andΦx(t)=arctanx̃(t)x(t).(2)

The Hilbert transform of x(t) was computed as follows: x̃(t)=1πPV∫−x∞x(τ)t−τdτ,(3) Where PV denotes the Cauchy principal value. MATLAB function “hilbert” was used to calculate the Hilbert transform in our analysis. Given two time-series x(t) and y(t), where t=1,2,...,M, the PLV (zero-lag) can be computed as follows: PLV≜|E[ei(Φx(t)−Φy(t))]|,(4) where Φy(t) is the instantaneous phase for time-series y(t), |⋅| denotes the absolute value operator, E[⋅] denotes the expectation operator with respect to time t, and i denotes the square root of –1. PLVs were then averaged across trials to estimate the final PLV for each pair of electrodes.

iEEG analysis of modulation index and phase-amplitude coupling (PAC)

We used the modulation index (MI) estimation procedure (Tort et al., 2008) to calculate PAC of electrodes. We first denote the amplitude and the phase frequency ranges for our analysis by fA ([80, 160] Hz) and fp ([0.5, 8] Hz), respectively. Let x(t) denote the time-series of the electrode. We first filter x(t) at the two frequency ranges fA and fp. Let us denote the filtered signals as xfA(t) and xfp(t), respectively. We then estimate the phase time-series φfp(t) from the Hilbert transform of xfp(t) and the amplitude time-series AfA(t) from the Hilbert transform of xfA(t). Each point in the composite time-series [φfp(t),AfA(t)] indicates an amplitude of an oscillation in fA at the corresponding phase in the fp oscillation. We next bin the phases φfp(t) into eighteen 20° intervals (0°-360°) and calculate the mean of AfA over each of the phase bins. Let 〈AfA〉φfp(j) denote the mean AfA value at each phase bin j. We then define entropy H as follows: H=−∑j=1Npj logpj, where N=18 is the number of phase bins and pj is given by the following: pj=〈AfA〉φfp(j)∑j=1N〈AfA〉φfp(j).

The MI is estimated by normalizing H by the maximum possible entropy value Hmax, which is obtained for the uniform distribution pj=1/N (Hmax=logN) as follows: MI=Hmax−HHmax.

Higher MI values indicate stronger PAC, with 0 MI corresponding to 0 PAC.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using mixed effects analysis with the lmerTest package (Kuznetsova et al., 2017) implemented in R software (version 4.0.2, R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Because PTE data were not normally distributed, we used BestNormalize (Peterson and Cavanaugh, 2018), which contains a suite of transformation-estimating functions that can be used to optimally normalize data. The resulting normally distributed data were subjected to mixed effects analysis with the following model: PTE ∼ Condition + (1|Subject), where Condition models the fixed effects (condition differences) and (1|Subject) models the random repeated measurements within the same participant. ANOVA was used to test the significance of findings with false discovery rate (FDR) corrections for multiple comparisons (p < 0.05). Analysis of power, PLV, and PAC was conducted in the same manner using the mixed effects analysis.

The differential effects of stimulation on directed information flow between the MTL and the MFG, IFG, dPPC, and vPPC were also tested with a two-way ANOVA with the factors Region (MFG, IFG, dPPC, and vPPC) and Stimulation (ON/OFF). Linear mixed effects analysis was run in a similar way, with the following model: PTE ∼ Stimulation × Region + (1|Subject). Two-way ANOVA was then used to test the significance of findings with FDR corrections for multiple comparisons (p < 0.05).

For effect size estimation, we used η2 statistics for complex F-based effects, such as interaction effects and main effects with multiple factors and Cohen's d statistics for pairwise post hoc comparisons. We used the eta_squared() function in the effectsize package implemented in R for estimating η2 and the lme.dscore() function in the EMAtools package in R for estimating Cohen's d.

We also conducted surrogate analysis to test the significance of the estimated PTE values (Hillebrand et al., 2016). The estimated phases from the Hilbert transform for electrodes from a given pair of brain areas were time-shuffled so that the predictability of one time-series from another is destroyed, and PTE analysis was repeated on these shuffled data to build a distribution of surrogate PTE values against which the observed PTE was tested (p < 0.05).

Results

Behavioral effects of MTL stimulation

Participants were presented with a sequence of words and asked to remember them for subsequent recall (see Materials and Methods; Tables 1–3; Fig. 1) (Solomon et al., 2019). During encoding, a list of 12 words was visually presented for ∼30 s. Each word was presented for a duration of 1600 ms, followed by an interstimulus interval of 800-1200 ms. After a ∼20 s postencoding delay, participants were instructed to recall as many words as possible from the original list during the 30 s recall period. MTL stimulation occurred in a blocked pattern: the stimulator was active during the presentation of a pair of consecutive words and then inactive for the following pair.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Participant demographic information for the memory task and stimulation details (total 14 participants)a

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Number of electrode pairs used in the PTE and PLV analysis

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Number of electrodes in each brain region, used in power and PAC analysis

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

a, Intracranial stimulation sites in the MTL investigated in this study. Each anode-cathode pair of electrodes is connected by a red line. MTL included the hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, and entorhinal cortex. b, Nonstimulation iEEG recording sites in the MTL, middle and inferior subdivisions of the PFC (MFG and IFG), and dorsal and ventral subdivisions of the PPC (dPPC and vPPC), investigated in this study. c, Event structure of the verbal episodic memory task during nonstimulation (top) and stimulation (bottom) trials used in this study (for details, see Materials and Methods). Participants were first presented with a list of words in the encoding block and asked to recall as many as possible from the original list after a short delay (distractor period). Stimulation was provided in a blocked pattern; the stimulator was active during the presentation of a pair of consecutive words and then inactive for the following pair. On each stimulated list, the stimulator was active for half the total words (for details, see Materials and Methods).

Average memory recall accuracy across patients was 22.9 ± 11.7% for MTL stimulation trials and 27.5 ± 12.9% for nonstimulation trials. Memory recall was lower on stimulation, compared with nonstimulation, trials; this difference was marginally significant (p = 0.0574, Cohen's d = 0.51, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). This result is consistent with prior studies using UPENN-RAM data (Jacobs et al., 2016; Goyal et al., 2018; Kucewicz et al., 2018a) as well as other reports that direct stimulation of the hippocampus generally impairs memory (Halgren et al., 1985; Fernandez et al., 1996; Coleshill et al., 2004; Lacruz et al., 2010; Chua and Ahmed, 2016; Merkow et al., 2017; Herweg et al., 2020; Jun et al., 2020; Jackson et al., 2021).

Effect of MTL stimulation on information flow from MTL to PFC and PPC during memory encoding

We examined the differential effects of stimulation on directed information flow from the MTL to MFG, IFG, dPPC, and vPPC, using a two-way ANOVA with the factors Region (MFG, IFG, dPPC, and vPPC) and Stimulation (ON/OFF) (see Materials and Methods). We focused on directed information flow from the MTL to the PFC and PPC, in the delta-theta and beta bands, based on our replicable findings across verbal and spatial memory domains (Das and Menon, 2021, 2022). To preclude confounding influences associated with unsuccessful recall, we focused on how MTL stimulation affects encoding and recall on successful trials, consistent with prior studies (Watrous et al., 2013; Long et al., 2014). We found no interaction between Stimulation and Region in either delta-theta (F(1,660) = 0.06, p > 0.05, η2 = 9.76e-05) or beta (F(1,663) = 0.68, p > 0.05, η2 = 1.02e-03) frequency bands during memory encoding. We also did not find any main effects of Stimulation in either delta-theta (F(1,660) = 3.99, p > 0.05, η2 = 6.01e-03) or beta (F(1,663) = 0.06, p > 0.05, η2 = 9.76e-05) frequency bands during memory encoding (Table 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Differential effects of stimulation on directed information flow between the MTL and the MFG, IFG, dPPC, and vPPCa

Effect of MTL stimulation on information flow to the MTL from the PFC and PPC during memory encoding

We next examined directed information flow to the MTL from the PFC and PPC during verbal memory encoding. We examined the differential effects of stimulation on directed information flow from the MFG, IFG, dPPC, and vPPC to the MTL, using a two-way ANOVA with factors Region (MFG, IFG, dPPC, and vPPC) and Stimulation (ON/OFF) (see Materials and Methods). We found a significant Stimulation × Region interaction for directed information flow from the PFC and PPC to the MTL in the delta-theta band, (F(1,663) = 11.75, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.02) (Table 4). There was no interaction between Stimulation and Region (F(1,663) = 0.67, p > 0.05, η2 = 1.01e-03), or main effect of Stimulation (F(1,663) = 1.04, p > 0.05, η2 = 1.57e-03) in the beta frequency band (Table 4).

Next, we conducted post hoc tests to systematically investigate regional differences in the effects of MTL stimulation on directed information flow to the MTL in the delta-theta band (Fig. 2). MFG→MTL directed information flow decreased during stimulation trials compared with nonstimulation trials in the delta-theta band (F(1,260) = 12.00, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.43) (Fig. 2). In contrast, IFG→MTL (F(1,130) = 0.42, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.11), dPPC→MTL (F(1,220) = 0.45, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.09), and vPPC→MTL (F(1,42) = 3.36, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.57) directed information flow did not differ between stimulation and nonstimulation trials. We then compared the strength of top-down information flow to the MTL from the MFG, and dPPC and vPPC, associated with MTL stimulation. MFG→MTL directed information flow did not differ from dPPC→MTL (F(1,28) = 0.03, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.07) and vPPC→MTL (F(1,137) = 0.17, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.07) directed information flow on stimulation trials.

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

Directed information flow from PFC and PPC to the MTL in δ-theta band (0.5-8 Hz) during stimulation, compared with nonstimulation, trials in the memory encoding period. MFG→MTL information flow, measured using PTE, was reduced during the stimulation, compared with nonstimulation, trials (n = 132). In contrast, IFG→MTL (n = 68), dPPC→MTL (n = 114), and vPPC→MTL (n = 23) directed information flow did not differ between stimulation and nonstimulation trials. Central mark indicates the median. Bottom and top edges of the box indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively. Whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers. **p < 0.01 (FDR-corrected).

These results demonstrate that MTL stimulation reduces top-down MFG→MTL information flow in the delta-theta band during memory encoding, and that this effect is specific to PFC with no differences in either the dorsal or ventral PPC.

Effect of MTL stimulation on information flow from MTL to PFC and PPC during memory recall

We next examined the differential effects of stimulation on directed information flow from the MTL to the MFG, IFG, dPPC, and vPPC, with a two-way ANOVA with the factors Region (MFG, IFG, dPPC, and vPPC) and Stimulation (ON/OFF) during the memory recall period, which occurred ∼20 s after word encoding (see Materials and Methods). There was no significant Stimulation × Region interaction in the delta-theta band (F(1,662) = 2.64, p > 0.05, η2 = 3.98e-03) (Table 4). However, there was a main effect of Stimulation, with higher directed information flow from the MTL to the PFC and PPC during trials with stimulation (F(1,662) = 7.19, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.01). There was no Stimulation × Region interaction (F(1,663) = 5.61, p = 0.05, η2 = 8.39e-03) or main effect of Stimulation (F(1,663) = 4.62, p > 0.05, η2 = 6.91e-03) in the beta band (Table 4).

Effect of MTL stimulation on information flow to MTL from PFC and PPC during memory recall

We next examined the differential effects of stimulation on directed information flow from the MFG, IFG, dPPC, and vPPC to the MTL, with a two-way ANOVA with the factors Region (MFG, IFG, dPPC, and vPPC) and Stimulation (ON/OFF) during the memory recall period (see Materials and Methods). In the delta-theta band, we found no significant Stimulation × Region interaction (F(1,663) = 0.00, p > 0.05, η2 = 1.49e-06) or main effect of Stimulation (F(1,663) = 0.78, p > 0.05, η2 = 1.18e-03) (Table 4).

We found a significant Stimulation × Region interaction for directed information flow from PFC and PPC to MTL in the beta band (F(1,663) = 11.92, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.02) (Table 4). Post hoc analysis of this interaction revealed that MFG→MTL directed information flow decreased during stimulation, compared with the nonstimulation, trials (F(1,260) = 11.11, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.41) (Fig. 3). In contrast, IFG→MTL (F(1,130) = 3.75, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.34), dPPC→MTL (F(1,220) = 1.93, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.19), and vPPC→MTL (F(1,41) = 0.48, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.22) information flow did not differ between stimulation and nonstimulation trials. We then compared the strength of top-down information flow to the MTL from the MFG and dPPC associated with MTL stimulation. This analysis revealed that MFG→MTL directed information flow was significantly lower than dPPC→MTL information flow on stimulation trials (F(1,213) = 10.02, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.43) (Fig. 4). MFG→MTL directed information flow did not differ from dPPC→MTL information flow during nonstimulation trials (F(1,104) = 3.50, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.37). MFG→MTL directed information flow was lower than vPPC→MTL information flow during both stimulation (F(1,149) = 17.23, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.68) (Fig. 4) and nonstimulation trials (F(1,142) = 10.26, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.56).

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

Directed information flow from the PFC and PPC to the MTL in beta band (12-30 Hz) during stimulation, compared with nonstimulation, trials in the memory recall period. MFG→MTL information flow was reduced during the stimulation trials, compared with the nonstimulation trials (n = 132). In contrast, IFG→MTL (n = 68), dPPC→MTL (n = 114), and vPPC→MTL (n = 23) directed information flow did not differ between stimulation and nonstimulation trials. **p < 0.01 (FDR-corrected).

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

Comparison of directed information flow from the MFG and dPPC/vPPC to the MTL in beta band (12-30 Hz) during stimulation trials in the memory recall period. MFG→MTL (n = 132) information flow was significantly lower during the stimulation trials compared with both dPPC→MTL (n = 114) and vPPC→MTL (n = 23) information flow. ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; FDR-corrected.

Together, these results suggest that MTL stimulation reduces top-down directed information flow from the MFG subdivision of the PFC to the MTL in the beta band during memory recall. Results further suggest that MTL stimulation selectively suppresses top-down influences from the MFG, compared with both dorsal and ventral PPC, and that the PFC is relatively more sensitive to the effects of stimulation compared with the PPC.

Effect of MTL stimulation on information flow between the MTL and the PFC and PPC in resting state

To determine whether our main findings related to the direction of information flow between the MTL and the PFC and PPC in our study were specific to the effects of memory processing, we used “resting-state” data from participants collected in the UPENN-RAM public data release (Solomon et al., 2021). Subjects were instructed to sit quietly and did not perform any task. Similar to the memory task, bipolar stimulation current between pairs of depth MTL electrodes was applied at 50 Hz (Table 5). Based on electrode placement in the MTL and the PFC and PPC brain regions and based on the criteria that the stimulation frequency was 50 Hz, we selected 2 subjects (n = 105 electrode pairs for MFG and n = 60 electrode pairs for dPPC; IFG and vPPC did not have electrode sampling) with simultaneous electrode placements in MTL and MFG and also MTL and dPPC. We analyzed 1600 ms iEEG epochs immediately before the start of each stimulation trial; these correspond to the “non-stim” condition. We also analyzed 1600 ms iEEG epochs immediately after the end of each stimulation trial; these correspond to the “stim” condition.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Participant demographic information for analysis of resting-state iEEG (total 2 participants)a

We found that, in contrast to the memory task, neither MTL→MFG (F(1,207) = 0.04, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.03) nor MFG→MTL (F(1,207) = 0.00, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.00) directed information flow changed during stimulation, compared with the nonstimulation, trials in the delta-theta frequency band. Moreover, neither MTL→MFG (F(1,207) = 1.44, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.17) nor MFG→MTL (F(1,207) = 3.35, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.25) directed information flow changed during stimulation, compared with the nonstimulation, trials in the beta frequency band.

Furthermore, we found that neither MTL→dPPC nor dPPC→MTL directed information flow changed during stimulation, compared with the nonstimulation, trials in both the delta-theta (F(1,117) = 1.69, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.24 for MTL→dPPC and F(1,117) = 0.08, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.05 for dPPC→MTL) and beta (F(1,117) = 0.01, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.02 for MTL→dPPC and F(1,117) = 0.84, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.17 for dPPC→MTL) frequency bands.

Together, these results suggest that the reported results related to direction of information flow between the MTL and the PFC and PPC, which we observed during the memory task, cannot be solely attributable to effects of brain stimulation causing reorganization of brain circuits; rather, they are related to the combined effects of stimulation and memory processing.

Comparison of information flow between the MTL and the PFC and PPC during memory processing and resting state

To provide further evidence that our main findings related to the direction of information flow between the MTL and the PFC and PPC were specific to the effects of memory processing, we directly compared information flow from the MTL to the PFC and PPC, and the reverse, for the memory encoding and recall conditions with the resting-state condition, during the stimulation trials.

We first focused our analysis on bottom-up directed information flow from the MTL to the PFC and PPC. This analysis revealed that MTL→MFG directed information flow was higher for both memory encoding (F(1,235) = 8.34, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.38) and recall (F(1,115) = 23.72, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.91) compared with rest, during stimulation in the delta-theta frequency band. This finding was reversed in the beta frequency band, where MTL→MFG directed information flow was lower for both memory encoding (F(1,233) = 16.33, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.53) and recall (F(1,233) = 36.70, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.79) compared with rest. MTL→dPPC directed information flow was higher for both memory encoding (F(1,170) = 29.73, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.83) and recall (F(1,161) = 39.08, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.99) compared with rest, during stimulation in the delta-theta frequency band. MTL→dPPC directed information flow was also higher for memory recall (F(1,169) = 5.75, p < 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.37) compared with rest, during stimulation in the beta band; however, MTL→dPPC directed information flow did not differ for memory encoding and rest conditions in the beta band (F(1,170) = 0.08, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.04). These results suggest that the “bottom-up” effects of stimulation on memory processing enhance MTL to PFC information flow in the delta-theta frequency band and suppress this information flow in the beta frequency band, compared with rest. On the other hand, the “bottom-up” effects of stimulation on memory processing enhance MTL to PPC information flow in both delta-theta and beta frequency bands, compared with rest.

We next examined top-down directed information flow from the PFC and PPC to the MTL. This analysis revealed that MFG→MTL directed information flow was lower for both memory encoding (F(1,172) = 42.28, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.99) and recall (F(1,181) = 35.23, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.88) compared with rest, in the delta-theta frequency band and for memory recall compared with rest, in the beta frequency band (F(1,235) = 47.55, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.90). MFG→MTL directed information flow did not differ between memory encoding and rest in the beta band (F(1,235) = 0.05, p > 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.03). dPPC→MTL directed information flow was lower for both memory encoding (F(1,21) = 15.00, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 1.67) and recall (F(1,172) = 14.26, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.58) compared with rest, in the delta-theta frequency band. dPPC→MTL directed information flow was higher for memory encoding (F(1,161) = 15.46, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.62), but lower for memory recall (F(1,172) = 13.41, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.56) compared with rest, during stimulation in the beta band. These results suggest that the “top-down” effects of stimulation on memory processing mostly suppress information flow from the PFC and PPC to the MTL compared with rest.

Together, these results provide further evidence that the reported results related to direction of information flow between the MTL and the PFC and PPC, during the memory task, cannot be solely attributable to effects of brain stimulation causing reorganization of brain circuits. Rather, they are related to the combined effects of stimulation and memory processing.

Effect of MTL stimulation on directed information flow for successful versus unsuccessful memory recall

We next examine the effect of stimulation on directed information flow for successful compared with unsuccessful memory trials. To directly examine behavioral effects of stimulation, we focus our results on the memory recall periods (for results related to the memory encoding periods where strong behavioral signatures were absent, see Table 6). This analysis revealed that MTL→MFG directed information flow was significantly lower for successful, compared with unsuccessful, memory recall in the beta band (F(1,259) = 18.50, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.53) (Fig. 5). MTL→vPPC directed information flow was significantly higher for successful, compared with unsuccessful, memory recall in both delta-theta (F(1,41) = 24.01, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.62) and beta (F(1,41) = 10.27, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.77) frequency bands (Fig. 5).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 6.

Differential effects of MTL stimulation on directed information flow for successful versus unsuccessful memory during encoding and recall periods

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

Comparison of directed information flow from the MTL to the MFG and vPPC for successful, compared with unsuccessful, recall during stimulation trials in the memory recall period. MTL→MFG (n = 132) information flow was significantly reduced during successful, compared with unsuccessful, recall in the beta band. Moreover, MTL→vPPC (n = 23) information flow was significantly higher during successful, compared with unsuccessful, recall in both the δ-theta and β frequency bands. ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; FDR-corrected.

Together, these results suggest that the strongest behavioral effects of MTL stimulation are in the bottom-up direction, mediating information flow from MTL to MFG and vPPC. Results also suggest that both stimulation and memory processing contribute to directed information flow between the MTL and the PFC and PPC that we observed during the memory task.

Surrogate data analysis of directed information flow between the MTL and the PFC and PPC

Next, we conducted surrogate data analysis to test the significance of the estimated PTE values compared with PTE expected by chance (see Materials and Methods) for the stimulation trials. The estimated phases from the Hilbert transform for electrodes from pairs of brain areas were time-shuffled, and PTE analysis was repeated on these shuffled data to build a distribution of surrogate PTE values against which the observed PTE was tested.

Surrogate data analysis revealed that directed information flow from the MTL to MFG, IFG, dPPC, and vPPC and in the reverse direction was significantly higher than that expected by chance (p < 0.05 in all cases) in the delta-theta frequency band during both memory encoding and recall periods. In contrast, in the beta frequency band, directed information flow from the MTL to PFC and PPC subdivisions, and in the reverse direction, was significantly lower than that expected by chance (p < 0.05 in all cases) during both memory encoding and recall periods.

These results demonstrate that the reported directed information flow between different brain areas during stimulation trials arises from causal signaling that is enhanced significantly above chance levels.

Effects of MTL stimulation on intraregional information flow

Next, we examined information flow between electrode pairs within each of the individual brain regions examined above. We found that information flow between the electrodes did not differ between the stimulation and nonstimulation trials in any of the brain regions examined (MTL, MFG, dPPC, vPPC) during either memory encoding or recall in the delta-theta or beta bands (p values > 0.05, Cohen's d < 1.16). However, information flow in the IFG was higher for stimulation, compared with nonstimulation, trials in the beta band during memory recall (F(1,60) = 9.45, p < 0.05, Cohen's d = 0.79). These results indicate that MTL stimulation has minimal effect on intraregional directed information flow.

Effects of MTL stimulation on phase synchronization between MTL and PFC and PPC

In addition to analysis of time-delayed directed information flow using PTE, we also examined instantaneous phase synchronization between the MTL and the PFC and PPC. Analysis of instantaneous PLVs (see Materials and Methods) revealed that phase-locking of the MTL with the MFG, IFG, dPPC, vPPC did not differ between stimulation and nonstimulation trials for either memory encoding or recall in the delta-theta or beta bands (p values > 0.05, Cohen's d < 0.70). These results suggest that the neuromodulatory effects of MTL stimulation are a consequence of the time-delayed interactions between different brain areas as precisely captured by the PTE measure rather than instantaneous synchronization measures such as the PLV.

Effects of MTL stimulation on intraregional phase synchronization

Next, we used PLV to examine information flow between electrodes pairs within each of the individual brain regions. We found that phase-locking between the electrodes did not differ between stimulation and nonstimulation trials in any of the brain regions during both memory encoding and recall, in the delta-theta or beta bands (p values > 0.05, Cohen's d < 0.42). These results indicate that MTL stimulation does not affect intraregion phase synchronization.

Effects of MTL stimulation on power in each individual brain region

We examined whether iEEG power differed between the stimulation and nonstimulation trials in each of the brain regions, as this may potentially underlie differences in directed information flow between the MTL and the PFC and PPC. We estimated power in the delta-theta and beta frequency bands (see Materials and Methods) for stimulation and nonstimulation trials and for both the memory encoding and recall periods. Power did not differ between stimulation and nonstimulation trials in the delta-theta or beta frequency bands in any of the brain regions (p values > 0.05, Cohen's d < 0.68) (Fig. 6).

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

Spectral power in the δ-theta (0.5-8 Hz) and β (12-30 Hz) frequency bands during stimulation compared with nonstimulation trials for the encoding and retrieval periods. a, Spectral power in the δ-theta band during encoding periods. b, Spectral power in the δ-theta band during recall periods. c, Spectral power in the beta band during encoding periods. d, Spectral power in the beta band during recall periods. Zero on the x-axis indicates the onset of word presentation for the encoding periods and the verbal recall of a word during the recall periods.

Together, these results suggest that the differential directed information flow between the MTL and the PFC and PPC for stimulation and nonstimulation conditions are not driven by differences in the amplitude of iEEG fluctuations.

Effects of MTL stimulation on PAC

Based on previous studies demonstrating PAC between low-frequency delta-theta phase and amplitudes of high-gamma (80-160 Hz) frequency bands (Canolty et al., 2006; Tort et al., 2008), we examined the effects of stimulation on PAC in MTL, MFG, IFG, and dPPC and vPPC. We used the modulation index as an estimate of PAC in individual electrodes in different brain areas (Tort et al., 2008) (see Materials and Methods). This analysis revealed that PAC did not differ between stimulation and nonstimulation trials in any of the brain regions during memory encoding or recall (p values > 0.05, Cohen's d <0.80). This suggests that stimulation of the MTL does not affect PAC in any of the five brain regions.

Discussion

We examined how MTL stimulation alters directed information flow between the MTL and frontoparietal cortical regions implicated in formation and monitoring of episodic memories. We used depth iEEG recordings from the UPENN-RAM cohort in which participants performed a verbal free recall task during concurrent stimulation of MTL neurons. During memory encoding, select MTL electrodes were electrically stimulated at 50 Hz on half the trials (Jacobs et al., 2016; Goyal et al., 2018). Building on our replicable prior findings of frequency-specific interactions between the MTL and PFC (Das and Menon, 2021, 2022), we examined how MTL stimulation alters communication between the MTL and MFG subdivision of the PFC (i.e., dorsolateral PFC), during memory encoding, and how this stimulation altered communication during subsequent memory recall. MTL stimulation reduced memory recall (Cohen's effect size = 0.5) and disrupted directed information flow with the PFC. Figure 7 summarizes our key findings.

Figure 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 7.

Schematic illustration of key findings related to MTL stimulation. a, Directed information flow on successful trials. MTL stimulation decreased concurrent directed information flow from the MFG subdivision of the PFC to the MTL during memory encoding (δ-theta band). These effects were specific to MFG and were not observed in IFG or dorsal or ventral nodes of PPC. MTL stimulation aftereffects were observed in the subsequent memory recall period >20 s later, characterized by decreased top-down information flow from MFG to MTL (beta band); again, these effects were specific to MFG and were not observed in IFG or dorsal or ventral nodes of the PPC. Blue arrows indicate decrease during stimulation, compared with nonstimulation, trials. b, Comparison of directed information flow during successful versus unsuccessful memory recall. MTL to MFG information flow on stimulation trials was significantly lower for successful, compared with unsuccessful, memory recall (beta band). In contrast, MTL to vPPC information flow was significantly higher for successful, compared with unsuccessful, memory recall (both δ-theta and β bands). Thickness of arrows corresponds to relative strength of information flow, with higher thickness denoting stronger information flow.

MTL stimulation decreased MFG→MTL information flow in the delta-theta frequency band during the encoding period. Furthermore, the effects of MTL stimulation carried over from the encoding to the subsequent memory recall period, despite a ∼20 s delay period in which there was no external stimulation of the MTL. This process was characterized by decreased top-down MFG→MTL information flow in the beta frequency band. However, there was no difference in top-down PPC→MTL information flow. A direct comparison between the PFC and PPC revealed stronger modulation of top-down influences on the MTL from the PFC, compared with the PPC. Together, these findings demonstrate that MTL stimulation disrupts processing specifically in the PFC in the low-frequency delta-theta range during memory encoding with aftereffects that extend to subsequent recall periods.

MTL stimulation effects on directed MTL→PFC and PFC→MTL information flow during memory encoding

The primary goal of our study was to characterize the effect of MTL stimulation on directed information flow between the MTL and the PFC during verbal episodic memory processing. The MTL and MFG (dorsolateral PFC) play a critical role in human episodic memory encoding (Anderson et al., 2010; Watrous et al., 2013; Ekstrom and Watrous, 2014; Neuner et al., 2014; Gonzalez et al., 2015). However, it is unclear how electrical stimulation of the MTL modulates neural dynamics of the targeted regions and the circuits that link them. Specifically, the effect of stimulation on directed information flow between the MTL and the PFC during episodic memory processing is poorly understood.

Our study builds on previously replicated findings across verbal episodic and spatial memory domains which revealed higher bottom-up MTL→PFC information flow than the reverse, in delta-theta and higher top-down PFC→MTL information flow than the reverse, in the beta frequency bands (Das and Menon, 2021, 2022). We used PTE, which provides a robust and powerful tool for characterizing information flow between brain regions based on phase coupling (Lobier et al., 2014; Hillebrand et al., 2016; M. Y. Wang et al., 2017).

We took an unbiased approach for assigning electrodes to individual anatomically defined brain regions, and we did not select electrodes based on arbitrary task or stimulation-induced activation profiles. Our approach thus allowed us to probe the electrophysiological correlates of the effects of MTL stimulation on directed information flow between the MTL and PFC more generally. We found that MTL stimulation decreased PFC→MTL information flow during the encoding period, in delta-theta band. Notably, these effects were specific to the dorsolateral MFG subdivision of the PFC and were not observed in the more ventral aspects that comprise the IFG.

We conducted control analyses to ensure that the reported effects related to the directed information flow between the MTL and the MFG did not arise solely from brain stimulation causing reorganization of brain circuits. Specifically, we used “resting-state” data from a separate group of participants, also acquired and released as part of the UPENN-RAM public data release (Solomon et al., 2021). Participants were instructed to sit quietly and did not perform any task. Similar to the memory task, in the resting-state condition, bipolar stimulation current between pairs of depth MTL electrodes was applied at 50 Hz. We found that, in contrast to the memory task, neither MTL→MFG nor MFG→MTL directed information flow changed during stimulation, compared with the nonstimulation, trials in the delta-theta frequency band. These results suggest that directed information flow between the MTL and the MFG observed during the memory task are not solely attributable to brain stimulation-induced reorganization of brain circuits, rather they are related to the combined effects of stimulation and memory processing.

MTL stimulation effects on directed MTL→PFC and PFC→MTL information flow during memory recall

Crucially, the effects of MTL stimulation were also detectable in the subsequent recall period which occurred after a delay of 20 s. This finding is consistent with previous human iEEG studies which have observed strong afterdischarge iEEG signals within and outside the MTL during memory retrieval, which occurred tens of seconds after MTL stimulation was applied during the encoding period of an episodic memory task (Halgren et al., 1985; Jun et al., 2020). Moreover, similar to our findings, these afterdischarge effects were linked to memory impairment in these studies (Halgren et al., 1985; Jun et al., 2020). Specifically, we observed decreased MFG→MTL information flow on stimulation, compared with nonstimulation, trials in the beta frequency band. Again, this effect was specific to the dorsolateral MFG subdivision of the PFC, which is known to play a prominent role in top-down control of both subcortical and cortical regions involved in memory formation (Brovelli et al., 2004; Engel and Fries, 2010; Spitzer and Haegens, 2017; Stanley et al., 2018). Extending our findings of spectrally resolved top-down influences from the PFC, we found MTL stimulation effects in the beta band but not in the δ–theta frequency band, providing consistent evidence for spectral dissociation associated with the beta frequency band. Theoretical models have pointed to both excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms underlying deep brain stimulation (Vitek, 2002; McIntyre et al., 2004). We did not observe changes in power of iEEG signals in either frequency band, suggesting causal circuit mechanisms arising from phase, rather than amplitude, changes underlie the observed MTL stimulation related changes in information flow.

LFP studies in monkeys have demonstrated a more prominent role for the dorsal, compared with the ventral, PFC in top-down control in the beta frequency band for processing higher-level abstractions during working memory performance (Wutz et al., 2018). Electrophysiology studies in rodents performing an odor-place associative memory-guided decision task on a T-maze have shown that hippocampal-PFC coherence in the beta frequency band is linked to accurate decisions (Symanski et al., 2022). LFP studies in monkeys performing a paired association learning task have shown that beta oscillations in the MFG encode picture-color association (Tanigawa et al., 2022). fMRI studies in humans have shown that the dorsal MFG is a part of the central executive network which plays an important role in memory processing and complex decision-making (Seeley et al., 2007; Sridharan et al., 2008; Menon and Uddin, 2010). Additionally, MEG and iEEG studies in humans have shown a prominent role of beta for feedback signaling (Michalareas et al., 2016; Hayat et al., 2022). Consistent with our findings, rodent studies have also shown that inhibition of PFC projections to the hippocampus impairs memory recall (Rajasethupathy et al., 2015; Yadav et al., 2022). Reduction in neural signaling from the MFG to the MTL during memory recall may explain why stimulation of the MTL reduces or impairs memory performance (Coleshill et al., 2004; Lacruz et al., 2010; Jacobs et al., 2016; Goyal et al., 2018).

A recent study using 1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the MFG found enhancement of verbal memory performance and also showed that this stimulation induced stronger beta power modulation in the posterior areas (van der Plas et al., 2021), suggesting that neuromodulatory effects in the MFG might be the most prominent in the beta frequency band. A meta-analysis of rTMS studies has revealed that 1 Hz rTMS of the MFG usually leads to an enhancement of episodic memory performance, whereas 20 Hz rTMS of the MFG usually leads to a reduction in episodic memory performance (Yeh and Rose, 2019). These results indicate a disruptive effect of beta on MFG neural dynamics at frequencies significantly >1 Hz, including the 50 Hz stimulation frequency used in our study, and may explain the reduction of information flow from the MFG that we observed during the recall periods in this frequency band.

Dissociable effects of MTL stimulation on top-down causal information flow from PFC and PPC

The next goal of our study was to contrast the effects of MTL stimulation on information flow with the PFC and PPC. In addition to the PFC, the PPC also plays an important role in episodic memory (Tulving et al., 1994; Moscovitch et al., 1995; Schacter et al., 1996). PTE analysis revealed that, in contrast to the PFC, there were no differences between stimulation and nonstimulation trials in top-down dPPC→MTL information flow. A direct comparison revealed stronger MTL stimulation-induced modulation of top-down MFG→MTL, compared with dPPC→MTL in the beta frequency band (Fig. 4). Information flow between the MTL and vPPC was unaffected by MTL stimulation, and a direct comparison confirmed stronger MTL stimulation-induced modulation of top-down MFG→MTL, compared with vPPC→MTL in the beta frequency band. This suggests that the dorsolateral MFG subdivision of the PFC is more sensitive to MTL stimulation than PPC regions involved in episodic memory.

Electrophysiology studies in monkeys have shown that the PFC is more sensitive to memory encoding compared with the PPC (Qi et al., 2015; Masse et al., 2017; Murray et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2021; Dang et al., 2022). Specifically, these studies showed that, compared with the PPC, neurons in the PFC are more responsive (Dang et al., 2022), show more persistent firing rate (Masse et al., 2017), and are more robust to distractors (Qi et al., 2015; Murray et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2021). Together, these findings suggest that the MFG may play an enhanced role compared with the PPC in memory formation, which may make it a more sensitive target of brain stimulation compared with the PPC in humans (J. X. Wang et al., 2014).

Behavioral specificity of the effects of MTL stimulation

Finally, we examined whether the observed effects of MTL stimulation on information flow between different brain regions reflect cognitive processes related to memory encoding, or whether they are solely attributable to the reorganization of brain circuits from the effects of stimulation. We tested the hypothesis that the information flow between different brain areas would differ between successful and unsuccessful memory trials during stimulation, thus putatively reflecting cognitive processes related to memory processing, rather than effects of stimulation only.

We found that the direction of information flow between the MTL and both the PFC and PPC during memory recall is behaviorally relevant. Results support the hypotheses that causal signaling from the MTL to both regions are associated with memory recall processes, rather than arising solely from the effects of MTL stimulation-related reorganization of brain circuits. MTL→MFG directed information flow was significantly lower for successful, compared with unsuccessful, memory recall in the beta band. This suggests that the higher causal signaling between the MTL→MFG in the beta band during unsuccessful trials is disruptive during recall.

Crucially, we found that the direction of information flow between the MTL and the vPPC during memory recall was also behaviorally relevant. MTL→vPPC directed information flow was significantly higher for successful, compared with unsuccessful, memory recall in both the delta-theta and beta frequency bands. MTL-vPPC have been previously proposed to form a coherent set of network and interactions within this network have been proposed to play a crucial role in memory processing in humans (Wagner et al., 2005; Ranganath and Ritchey, 2012). Moreover, noninvasive rTMS to the vPPC area is known to be associated with successful associative memory retrieval in humans (J. X. Wang et al., 2014). The increased MTL→vPPC directed information flow that we observed for the successful trials during memory recall is thus consistent with the prominent role of the vPPC for episodic memory retrieval and extends our understanding of directed causal signaling that supports such a role in the human brain.

Together, these results demonstrate that stimulating the MTL has a significant impact on communication between the MTL and the PFC and PPC, which can either enhance or hinder memory recall. Additionally, the results indicate that the direction of information flow in the MTL is not solely because of reorganization of brain circuits caused by stimulation, but rather a combination of stimulation and memory processing.

Limitations

The stimulation paradigm used in the study was applied only at a single frequency (50 Hz) (see Materials and Methods). Previous studies in humans have usually applied direct stimulation at theta and gamma frequencies to modulate memory performance, which are considered to be the endogenous rhythms of the MTL (Eichenbaum, 2017), although these frequencies have had a varied effect on memory performance. Whereas theta frequency stimulation has shown improvement in memory performance (Koubeissi et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2013; Alagapan et al., 2019), stimulation at 50 Hz has shown heterogeneous patterns of memory performance, with some studies suggesting memory enhancement (Suthana et al., 2012; Fell et al., 2013; Inman et al., 2018), while others have found impairment in memory performance (Coleshill et al., 2004; Lacruz et al., 2010; Jacobs et al., 2016; Goyal et al., 2018). Limitations of electrode placement precluded analysis of causal circuit dynamics associated with each hemisphere and distinct subdivisions of the MTL; denser sampling of electrodes in multiple brain regions with a wider range of experimental tasks, and a larger number of participants are needed to further address these limitations. Additionally, studies with memory and resting-state iEEG data acquired in the same participants are needed to confirm that the effects of MTL stimulation reported in our study are not solely attributable to brain stimulation-induced reorganization of brain circuits. Finally, it is not known whether some of the patients may have shown considerable memory dysfunction in formal neuropsychological testing. Future studies with rigorous neuropsychological testing procedures are needed to determine the effect of brain stimulation in patients with different cognitive abilities.

In the present study, participants received stimulation at a range of current amplitudes, starting from 0.25 to 1.5 mA. The choice of the current amplitude values for the cognitive experiments of the participants was the maximum current for each site that could be applied without inducing patient symptoms, epileptiform after discharges, or seizures. Lack of sufficient participants and electrode pairs for each of these current amplitude values did not allow us to study the effects of current amplitude on the information flow between the MTL and the PFC and PPC. Future studies will also need to consider the effects of a range of stimulation frequencies and currents, and electrode sites across MTL subdivisions in gray/white matter to rigorously assess other factors that influence memory performance, monitoring, and directed information flow between the MTL and PFC.

In conclusion, our findings provide novel evidence that MTL stimulation alters directed information flow with the PFC and PPC and that these influences are behaviorally relevant. Stimulating the MTL decreased flow of information from PFC to the MTL during both the encoding and recall periods, with effects lasting for >20 s after end of stimulation. This suppression of top-down PFC to MTL influences was stronger than suppression of PPC to MTL influences. Additionally, the flow of information from MTL to PFC was lower during successful memory recall compared with unsuccessful recall, while the flow of information from the MTL to the vPPC was higher during successful recall. These results show that the effects of MTL stimulation are specific to behavior, region, and direction, that MTL stimulation specifically impairs communication with the PFC, and that causal MTL-vPPC circuits support successful memory recall. Findings further suggest that information theoretic measures based on phase delays may provide a more robust measure of the effects of stimulation than other measures, such as changes in power and PAC. Crucially, our findings demonstrate that suppression of the dorsolateral PFC is a locus of circuit vulnerability induced by MTL stimulation. Findings uncover a mechanism by which human MTL stimulation disrupts both formation and retrieval of recent memories (Halgren et al., 1985). Our findings have implications for translational applications aimed at realizing the promise of brain stimulation-based treatment of memory disorders.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants NS086085 and EB022907. We thank Dr. Yuan Zhang for assistance with statistical analysis.

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Anup Das at a1das{at}stanford.edu or Vinod Menon at menon{at}stanford.edu

SfN exclusive license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Alagapan S,
    2. Lustenberger C,
    3. Hadar E,
    4. Shin HW,
    5. Fröhlich F
    (2019) Low-frequency direct cortical stimulation of left superior frontal gyrus enhances working memory performance. Neuroimage 184:697–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.064 pmid:30268847
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Amer T,
    2. Davachi L
    (2022) Neural mechanisms of memory. In: Oxford handbook of human memory (Kahana MJ, Wagner AD, eds). Oxford: Oxford UP.
  3. ↵
    1. Amorapanth PX,
    2. Widick P,
    3. Chatterjee A
    (2010) The neural basis for spatial relations. J Cogn Neurosci 22:1739–1753. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21322 pmid:19642889
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Andersen RA,
    2. Essick GK,
    3. Siegel RM
    (1985) Encoding of spatial location by posterior parietal neurons. Science 230:456–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.4048942 pmid:4048942
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Anderson KL,
    2. Rajagovindan R,
    3. Ghacibeh GA,
    4. Meador KJ,
    5. Ding M
    (2010) Theta oscillations mediate interaction between prefrontal cortex and medial temporal lobe in human memory. Cereb Cortex 20:1604–1612. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp223 pmid:19861635
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Backus AR,
    2. Schoffelen JM,
    3. Szebényi S,
    4. Hanslmayr S,
    5. Doeller CF
    (2016) Hippocampal-prefrontal theta oscillations support memory integration. Curr Biol 26:450–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.048 pmid:26832442
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Badre D,
    2. Poldrack RA,
    3. Paré-Blagoev EJ,
    4. Insler RZ,
    5. Wagner AD
    (2005) Dissociable controlled retrieval and generalized selection mechanisms in ventrolateral prefrontal cortex. Neuron 47:907–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.07.023 pmid:16157284
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Badre D,
    2. Wagner AD
    (2007) Left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and the cognitive control of memory. Neuropsychologia 45:2883–2901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.06.015 pmid:17675110
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Barnett L,
    2. Seth AK
    (2014) The MVGC multivariate Granger causality toolbox: a new approach to Granger-causal inference. J Neurosci Methods 223:50–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.10.018 pmid:24200508
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Baumann O,
    2. Chan E,
    3. Mattingley JB
    (2012) Distinct neural networks underlie encoding of categorical versus coordinate spatial relations during active navigation. Neuroimage 60:1630–1637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.089 pmid:22300811
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Brincat SL,
    2. Miller EK
    (2015) Frequency-specific hippocampal-prefrontal interactions during associative learning. Nat Neurosci 18:576–581. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3954 pmid:25706471
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Brovelli A,
    2. Ding M,
    3. Ledberg A,
    4. Chen Y,
    5. Nakamura R,
    6. Bressler SL
    (2004) Beta oscillations in a large-scale sensorimotor cortical network: directional influences revealed by Granger causality. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:9849–9854. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0308538101 pmid:15210971
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Bruns A
    (2004) Fourier-, Hilbert- and wavelet-based signal analysis: are they really different approaches? J Neurosci Methods 137:321–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2004.03.002 pmid:15262077
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Buckner RL,
    2. Koutstaal W,
    3. Schacter DL,
    4. Dale AM,
    5. Rotte M,
    6. Rosen BR
    (1998) Functional-anatomic study of episodic retrieval: II. Selective averaging of event-related fMRI trials to test the retrieval success hypothesis. Neuroimage 7:163–175. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.1998.0328 pmid:9597658
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Burke JF,
    2. Zaghloul KA,
    3. Jacobs J,
    4. Williams RB,
    5. Sperling MR,
    6. Sharan AD,
    7. Kahana MJ
    (2013) Synchronous and asynchronous theta and gamma activity during episodic memory formation. J Neurosci 33:292–304. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2057-12.2013 pmid:23283342
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Cabeza R
    (2008) Role of parietal regions in episodic memory retrieval: the dual attentional processes hypothesis. Neuropsychologia 46:1813–1827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.03.019 pmid:18439631
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Cabeza R,
    2. Ciaramelli E,
    3. Olson IR,
    4. Moscovitch M
    (2008) The parietal cortex and episodic memory: an attentional account. Nat Rev Neurosci 9:613–625. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2459 pmid:18641668
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Cabeza R,
    2. Mazuz YS,
    3. Stokes J,
    4. Kragel JE,
    5. Woldorff MG,
    6. Ciaramelli E,
    7. Olson IR,
    8. Moscovitch M
    (2011) Overlapping parietal activity in memory and perception: evidence for the attention to memory model. J Cogn Neurosci 23:3209–3217. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00065 pmid:21568633
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Cabeza R,
    2. Ciaramelli E,
    3. Moscovitch M
    (2012) Cognitive contributions of the ventral parietal cortex: an integrative theoretical account. Trends Cogn Sci 16:338–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.008 pmid:22609315
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Canolty RT,
    2. Edwards E,
    3. Dalal SS,
    4. Soltani M,
    5. Nagarajan SS,
    6. Kirsch HE,
    7. Berger MS,
    8. Barbaro NM,
    9. Knight RT
    (2006) High gamma power is phase-locked to theta oscillations in human neocortex. Science 313:1626–1628. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128115 pmid:16973878
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Chen LL,
    2. Lin LH,
    3. Green EJ,
    4. Barnes CA,
    5. McNaughton BL
    (1994) Head-direction cells in the rat posterior cortex: I. Anatomical distribution and behavioral modulation. Exp Brain Res 101:8–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00243212 pmid:7843305
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Chua EF,
    2. Ahmed R
    (2016) Electrical stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves memory monitoring. Neuropsychologia 85:74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.03.008 pmid:26970142
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Ciaramelli E,
    2. Grady CL,
    3. Moscovitch M
    (2008) Top-down and bottom-up attention to memory: a hypothesis (AtoM) on the role of the posterior parietal cortex in memory retrieval. Neuropsychologia 46:1828–1851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.03.022 pmid:18471837
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Ciaramelli E,
    2. Burianová H,
    3. Vallesi A,
    4. Cabeza R,
    5. Moscovitch M
    (2020) Functional interplay between posterior parietal cortex and hippocampus during detection of memory targets and non-targets. Front Neurosci 14:563768. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.563768 pmid:33224020
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Clower DM,
    2. West RA,
    3. Lynch JC,
    4. Strick PL
    (2001) The inferior parietal lobule is the target of output from the superior colliculus, hippocampus, and cerebellum. J Neurosci 21:6283–6291. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-16-06283.2001 pmid:11487651
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Coleshill SG,
    2. Binnie CD,
    3. Morris RG,
    4. Alarcón G,
    5. van Emde Boas W,
    6. Velis DN,
    7. Simmons A,
    8. Polkey CE,
    9. van Veelen CW,
    10. van Rijen PC
    (2004) Material-specific recognition memory deficits elicited by unilateral hippocampal electrical stimulation. J Neurosci 24:1612–1616. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4352-03.2004 pmid:14973245
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Crowe DA,
    2. Chafee MV,
    3. Averbeck BB,
    4. Georgopoulos AP
    (2004) Neural activity in primate parietal area 7a related to spatial analysis of visual mazes. Cereb Cortex 14:23–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhg088 pmid:14654454
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Cruzado NA,
    2. Tiganj Z,
    3. Brincat SL,
    4. Miller EK,
    5. Howard MW
    (2020) Conjunctive representation of what and when in monkey hippocampus and lateral prefrontal cortex during an associative memory task. Hippocampus 30:1332–1346. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.23282 pmid:33174670
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Curtis CE
    (2006) Prefrontal and parietal contributions to spatial working memory. Neuroscience 139:173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.04.070 pmid:16326021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Dang W,
    2. Li S,
    3. Pu S,
    4. Qi XL,
    5. Constantinidis C
    (2022) More prominent nonlinear mixed selectivity in the dorsolateral prefrontal than posterior parietal cortex. eNeuro 9:ENEURO.0517-21.2022. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0517-21.2022
  31. ↵
    1. Das A,
    2. Menon V
    (2020) Spatiotemporal integrity and spontaneous nonlinear dynamic properties of the salience network revealed by human intracranial electrophysiology: a multicohort replication. Cereb Cortex 30:5309–5321. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaa111 pmid:32426806
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Das A,
    2. Menon V
    (2021) Asymmetric frequency-specific feedforward and feedback information flow between hippocampus and prefrontal cortex during verbal memory encoding and recall. J Neurosci 41:8427–8440.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Das A,
    2. Menon V
    (2022) Replicable patterns of causal information flow between hippocampus and prefrontal cortex during spatial navigation and spatial-verbal memory formation. Cereb Cortex 32:5343–5361.
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Daselaar SM,
    2. Prince SE,
    3. Dennis NA,
    4. Hayes SM,
    5. Kim H,
    6. Cabeza R
    (2009) Posterior midline and ventral parietal activity is associated with retrieval success and encoding failure. Front Hum Neurosci 3:13. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.013.2009 pmid:19680466
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Dickerson BC,
    2. Eichenbaum H
    (2010) The episodic memory system: neurocircuitry and disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology 35:86–104. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2009.126
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Dobbins IG,
    2. Foley H,
    3. Schacter DL,
    4. Wagner AD
    (2002) Executive control during episodic retrieval: multiple prefrontal processes subserve source memory. Neuron 35:989–996. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00858-9 pmid:12372291
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Eichenbaum H
    (2017) Prefrontal-hippocampal interactions in episodic memory. Nat Rev Neurosci 18:547–558. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.74 pmid:28655882
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Ekstrom AD,
    2. Caplan JB,
    3. Ho E,
    4. Shattuck K,
    5. Fried I,
    6. Kahana MJ
    (2005) Human hippocampal theta activity during virtual navigation. Hippocampus 15:881–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20109 pmid:16114040
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Ekstrom AD,
    2. Watrous AJ
    (2014) Multifaceted roles for low-frequency oscillations in bottom-up and top-down processing during navigation and memory. Neuroimage 85:667–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.049 pmid:23792985
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Engel AK,
    2. Fries P
    (2010) Beta-band oscillations: signalling the status quo? Curr Opin Neurobiol 20:156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2010.02.015 pmid:20359884
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Ezzyat Y, et al
    . (2018) Closed-loop stimulation of temporal cortex rescues functional networks and improves memory. Nat Commun 9:365. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02753-0 pmid:29410414
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Fan L,
    2. Li H,
    3. Zhuo J,
    4. Zhang Y,
    5. Wang J,
    6. Chen L,
    7. Yang Z,
    8. Chu C,
    9. Xie S,
    10. Laird AR,
    11. Fox PT,
    12. Eickhoff SB,
    13. Yu C,
    14. Jiang T
    (2016) The Human Brainnetome Atlas: a new brain atlas based on connectional architecture. Cereb Cortex 26:3508–3526. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw157 pmid:27230218
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Fell J,
    2. Staresina BP,
    3. Do Lam AT,
    4. Widman G,
    5. Helmstaedter C,
    6. Elger CE,
    7. Axmacher N
    (2013) Memory modulation by weak synchronous deep brain stimulation: a pilot study. Brain Stimul 6:270–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2012.08.001 pmid:22939277
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Fernandez G,
    2. Hufnagel A,
    3. Helmstaedter C,
    4. Zentner J,
    5. Elger CE
    (1996) Memory function during low intensity hippocampal electrical stimulation in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Eur J Neurol 3:335–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.1996.tb00227.x
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. Gonzalez A,
    2. Hutchinson JB,
    3. Uncapher MR,
    4. Chen J,
    5. LaRocque KF,
    6. Foster BL,
    7. Rangarajan V,
    8. Parvizi J,
    9. Wagner AD
    (2015) Electrocorticography reveals the temporal dynamics of posterior parietal cortical activity during recognition memory decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:11066–11071. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510749112 pmid:26283375
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Goyal A,
    2. Miller J,
    3. Watrous AJ,
    4. Lee SA,
    5. Coffey T,
    6. Sperling MR,
    7. Sharan A,
    8. Worrell G,
    9. Berry B,
    10. Lega B,
    11. Jobst BC,
    12. Davis KA,
    13. Inman C,
    14. Sheth SA,
    15. Wanda PA,
    16. Ezzyat Y,
    17. Das SR,
    18. Stein J,
    19. Gorniak R,
    20. Jacobs J
    (2018) Electrical stimulation in hippocampus and entorhinal cortex impairs spatial and temporal memory. J Neurosci 38:4471–4481. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3049-17.2018 pmid:29636396
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Grover S,
    2. Nguyen JA,
    3. Reinhart RM
    (2021) Synchronizing brain rhythms to improve cognition. Annu Rev Med 72:29–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-060619-022857 pmid:33035432
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Guitart-Masip M,
    2. Barnes GR,
    3. Horner A,
    4. Bauer M,
    5. Dolan RJ,
    6. Duzel E
    (2013) Synchronization of medial temporal lobe and prefrontal rhythms in human decision making. J Neurosci 33:442–451. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2573-12.2013 pmid:23303925
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Gurd JM,
    2. Amunts K,
    3. Weiss PH,
    4. Zafiris O,
    5. Zilles K,
    6. Marshall JC,
    7. Fink GR
    (2002) Posterior parietal cortex is implicated in continuous switching between verbal fluency tasks: an fMRI study with clinical implications. Brain 125:1024–1038. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awf093 pmid:11960893
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Halgren E,
    2. Wilson CL,
    3. Stapleton JM
    (1985) Human medial temporal-lobe stimulation disrupts both formation and retrieval of recent memories. Brain Cogn 4:287–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2626(85)90022-3 pmid:4027062
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Hansen N,
    2. Chaieb L,
    3. Derner M,
    4. Hampel KG,
    5. Elger CE,
    6. Surges R,
    7. Staresina B,
    8. Axmacher N,
    9. Fell J
    (2018) Memory encoding-related anterior hippocampal potentials are modulated by deep brain stimulation of the entorhinal area. Hippocampus 28:12–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22808 pmid:29034573
    OpenUrlPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Hasegawa I,
    2. Hayashi T,
    3. Miyashita Y
    (1999) Memory retrieval under the control of the prefrontal cortex. Ann Med 31:380–387. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853899908998795 pmid:10680852
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Hayat H,
    2. Marmelshtein A,
    3. Krom AJ,
    4. Sela Y,
    5. Tankus A,
    6. Strauss I,
    7. Fahoum F,
    8. Fried I,
    9. Nir Y
    (2022) Reduced neural feedback signaling despite robust neuron and gamma auditory responses during human sleep. Nat Neurosci 25:935–943. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01107-4 pmid:35817847
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Herweg NA,
    2. Solomon EA,
    3. Kahana MJ
    (2020) Theta oscillations in human memory. Trends Cogn Sci 24:208–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.12.006 pmid:32029359
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Hillebrand A,
    2. Tewarie P,
    3. van Dellen E,
    4. Yu M,
    5. Carbo EW,
    6. Douw L,
    7. Gouw AA,
    8. van Straaten EC,
    9. Stam CJ
    (2016) Direction of information flow in large-scale resting-state networks is frequency-dependent. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:3867–3872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1515657113 pmid:27001844
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    1. Huang Y,
    2. Keller C
    (2022) How can I investigate causal brain networks with iEEG? In: Intracranial EEG for cognitive neuroscientists (Axmacher N, ed). New York: Springer.
  57. ↵
    1. Husain M,
    2. Nachev P
    (2007) Space and the parietal cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 11:30–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.011 pmid:17134935
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Hutchinson JB,
    2. Uncapher MR,
    3. Wagner AD
    (2009) Posterior parietal cortex and episodic retrieval: convergent and divergent effects of attention and memory. Learn Mem 16:343–356. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.919109 pmid:19470649
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    1. Inman CS,
    2. Manns JR,
    3. Bijanki KR,
    4. Bass DI,
    5. Hamann S,
    6. Drane DL,
    7. Fasano RE,
    8. Kovach CK,
    9. Gross RE,
    10. Willie JT
    (2018) Direct electrical stimulation of the amygdala enhances declarative memory in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:98–103. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714058114 pmid:29255054
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    1. Insausti R,
    2. Muñoz M
    (2001) Cortical projections of the non-entorhinal hippocampal formation in the cynomolgus monkey (Macaca fascicularis). Eur J Neurosci 14:435–451. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01662.x pmid:11553294
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Jackson JB,
    2. Feredoes E,
    3. Rich AN,
    4. Lindner M,
    5. Woolgar A
    (2021) Concurrent neuroimaging and neurostimulation reveals a causal role for dlPFC in coding of task-relevant information. Commun Biol 4:588. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02109-x pmid:34002006
    OpenUrlPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Jacobs J,
    2. Miller J,
    3. Lee SA,
    4. Coffey T,
    5. Watrous AJ,
    6. Sperling MR,
    7. Sharan A,
    8. Worrell G,
    9. Berry B,
    10. Lega B,
    11. Jobst BC,
    12. Davis K,
    13. Gross RE,
    14. Sheth SA,
    15. Ezzyat Y,
    16. Das SR,
    17. Stein J,
    18. Gorniak R,
    19. Kahana MJ,
    20. Rizzuto DS
    (2016) Direct electrical stimulation of the human entorhinal region and hippocampus impairs memory. Neuron 92:983–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.10.062 pmid:27930911
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Jun S,
    2. Lee SA,
    3. Kim JS,
    4. Jeong W,
    5. Chung CK
    (2020) Task-dependent effects of intracranial hippocampal stimulation on human memory and hippocampal theta power. Brain Stimul 13:603–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2020.01.013 pmid:32289685
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Kahana MJ
    (2006) The cognitive correlates of human brain oscillations. J Neurosci 26:1669–1672. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3737-05c.2006 pmid:16467513
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  65. ↵
    1. Kim K,
    2. Ekstrom AD,
    3. Tandon N
    (2016) A network approach for modulating memory processes via direct and indirect brain stimulation: toward a causal approach for the neural basis of memory. Neurobiol Learn Mem 134:162–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2016.04.001 pmid:27066987
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Konishi S,
    2. Wheeler ME,
    3. Donaldson DI,
    4. Buckner RL
    (2000) Neural correlates of episodic retrieval success. Neuroimage 12:276–286. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0614 pmid:10944410
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Koubeissi MZ,
    2. Kahriman E,
    3. Syed TU,
    4. Miller J,
    5. Durand DM
    (2013) Low-frequency electrical stimulation of a fiber tract in temporal lobe epilepsy. Ann Neurol 74:223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.23915 pmid:23613463
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Kucewicz MT,
    2. Cimbalnik J,
    3. Matsumoto JY,
    4. Brinkmann BH,
    5. Bower MR,
    6. Vasoli V,
    7. Sulc V,
    8. Meyer F,
    9. Marsh WR,
    10. Stead SM,
    11. Worrell GA
    (2014) High frequency oscillations are associated with cognitive processing in human recognition memory. Brain 137:2231–2244. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu149 pmid:24919972
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Kucewicz MT,
    2. Berry BM,
    3. Kremen V,
    4. Miller LR,
    5. Khadjevand F,
    6. Ezzyat Y,
    7. Stein JM,
    8. Wanda P,
    9. Sperling MR,
    10. Gorniak R,
    11. Davis KA,
    12. Jobst BC,
    13. Gross RE,
    14. Lega B,
    15. Stead SM,
    16. Rizzuto DS,
    17. Kahana MJ,
    18. Worrell GA
    (2018a) Electrical stimulation modulates high γ activity and human memory performance. eNeuro 5:ENEURO.0369-17.2018. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0369-17.2018
  70. ↵
    1. Kucewicz MT,
    2. Berry BM,
    3. Miller LR,
    4. Khadjevand F,
    5. Ezzyat Y,
    6. Stein JM,
    7. Kremen V,
    8. Brinkmann BH,
    9. Wanda P,
    10. Sperling MR,
    11. Gorniak R,
    12. Davis KA,
    13. Jobst BC,
    14. Gross RE,
    15. Lega B,
    16. Van Gompel J,
    17. Stead SM,
    18. Rizzuto DS,
    19. Kahana MJ,
    20. Worrell GA
    (2018b) Evidence for verbal memory enhancement with electrical brain stimulation in the lateral temporal cortex. Brain 141:971–978. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awx373 pmid:29324988
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Kumaran D,
    2. Summerfield JJ,
    3. Hassabis D,
    4. Maguire EA
    (2009) Tracking the emergence of conceptual knowledge during human decision making. Neuron 63:889–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.07.030 pmid:19778516
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Kuznetsova A,
    2. Brockhoff PB,
    3. Christensen RH
    (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Soft 82:1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  73. ↵
    1. Kwon H,
    2. Kronemer SI,
    3. Christison-Lagay KL,
    4. Khalaf A,
    5. Li J,
    6. Ding JZ,
    7. Freedman NC,
    8. Blumenfeld H
    (2021) Early cortical signals in visual stimulus detection. Neuroimage 244:118608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118608 pmid:34560270
    OpenUrlPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Lachaux JP,
    2. Rodriguez E,
    3. Martinerie J,
    4. Varela FJ
    (1999) Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals. Hum Brain Mapp 8:194–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0193(1999)8:4<194::AID-HBM4>3.0.CO;2-C
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Lachaux JP,
    2. Axmacher N,
    3. Mormann F,
    4. Halgren E,
    5. Crone NE
    (2012) High-frequency neural activity and human cognition: past, present and possible future of intracranial EEG research. Prog Neurobiol 98:279–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2012.06.008 pmid:22750156
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Lacruz ME,
    2. Valentín A,
    3. Seoane JJ,
    4. Morris RG,
    5. Selway RP,
    6. Alarcón G
    (2010) Single pulse electrical stimulation of the hippocampus is sufficient to impair human episodic memory. Neuroscience 170:623–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.06.042 pmid:20643192
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Lee DJ,
    2. Gurkoff GG,
    3. Izadi A,
    4. Berman RF,
    5. Ekstrom AD,
    6. Muizelaar JP,
    7. Lyeth BG,
    8. Shahlaie K
    (2013) Medial septal nucleus theta frequency deep brain stimulation improves spatial working memory after traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 30:131–139. https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2012.2646 pmid:23016534
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Lobier M,
    2. Siebenhühner F,
    3. Palva S,
    4. Matias PJ
    (2014) Phase transfer entropy: a novel phase-based measure for directed connectivity in networks coupled by oscillatory interactions. Neuroimage 85:853–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.056
    OpenUrl
  79. ↵
    1. Long NM,
    2. Burke JF,
    3. Kahana MJ
    (2014) Subsequent memory effect in intracranial and scalp EEG. Neuroimage 84:488–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.052 pmid:24012858
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Masse NY,
    2. Hodnefield JM,
    3. Freedman DJ
    (2017) Mnemonic encoding and cortical organization in parietal and prefrontal cortices. J Neurosci 37:6098–6112. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3903-16.2017 pmid:28539423
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. ↵
    1. McIntyre CC,
    2. Grill WM,
    3. Sherman DL,
    4. Thakor NV
    (2004) Cellular effects of deep brain stimulation: model-based analysis of activation and inhibition. J Neurophysiol 91:1457–1469. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00989.2003 pmid:14668299
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. McNaughton BL,
    2. Mizumori SJ,
    3. Barnes CA,
    4. Leonard BJ,
    5. Marquis M,
    6. Green EJ
    (1994) Cortical representation of motion during unrestrained spatial navigation in the rat. Cereb Cortex 4:27–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/4.1.27 pmid:8180489
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Menon V,
    2. Uddin LQ
    (2010) Saliency, switching, attention and control: a network model of insula function. Brain Struct Funct 214:655–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-010-0262-0 pmid:20512370
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Menon V,
    2. Freeman WJ,
    3. Cutillo BA,
    4. Desmond JE,
    5. Ward MF,
    6. Bressler SL,
    7. Laxer KD,
    8. Barbaro N,
    9. Gevins AS
    (1996) Spatio-temporal correlations in human gamma band electrocorticograms. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 98:89–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(95)00206-5 pmid:8598178
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Mercier MR, et al
    . (2022) Advances in human intracranial electroencephalography research, guidelines and good practices. Neuroimage 260: 119438.
    OpenUrl
  86. ↵
    1. Merkow MB,
    2. Burke JF,
    3. Ramayya AG,
    4. Sharan AD,
    5. Sperling MR,
    6. Kahana MJ
    (2017) Stimulation of the human medial temporal lobe between learning and recall selectively enhances forgetting. Brain Stimul 10:645–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2016.12.011 pmid:28073638
    OpenUrlPubMed
  87. ↵
    1. Meyer-Lindenberg AS,
    2. Olsen RK,
    3. Kohn PD,
    4. Brown T,
    5. Egan MF,
    6. Weinberger DR,
    7. Berman KF
    (2005) Regionally specific disturbance of dorsolateral prefrontal-hippocampal functional connectivity in schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 62:379–386. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.4.379 pmid:15809405
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. ↵
    1. Michalareas G,
    2. Vezoli J,
    3. van Pelt S,
    4. Schoffelen JM,
    5. Kennedy H,
    6. Fries P
    (2016) Alpha-beta and gamma rhythms subserve feedback and feedforward influences among human visual cortical areas. Neuron 89:384–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.12.018 pmid:26777277
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. ↵
    1. Miyamoto K,
    2. Osada T,
    3. Adachi Y,
    4. Matsui T,
    5. Kimura HM,
    6. Miyashita Y
    (2013) Functional differentiation of memory retrieval network in macaque posterior parietal cortex. Neuron 77:787–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.12.019 pmid:23439129
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Mohan UR,
    2. Watrous AJ,
    3. Miller JF,
    4. Lega BC,
    5. Sperling MR,
    6. Worrell GA,
    7. Gross RE,
    8. Zaghloul KA,
    9. Jobst BC,
    10. Davis KA,
    11. Sheth SA,
    12. Stein JM,
    13. Das SR,
    14. Gorniak R,
    15. Wanda PA,
    16. Rizzuto DS,
    17. Kahana MJ,
    18. Jacobs J
    (2020) The effects of direct brain stimulation in humans depend on frequency, amplitude, and white-matter proximity. Brain Stimul 13:1183–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2020.05.009 pmid:32446925
    OpenUrlPubMed
  91. ↵
    1. Moscovitch C,
    2. Kapur S,
    3. Köhler S,
    4. Houle S
    (1995) Distinct neural correlates of visual long-term memory for spatial location and object identity: a positron emission tomography study in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:3721–3725. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.92.9.3721 pmid:7731972
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. ↵
    1. Moscovitch M,
    2. Cabeza R,
    3. Winocur G,
    4. Nadel L
    (2016) Episodic memory and beyond: the hippocampus and neocortex in transformation. Annu Rev Psychol 67:105–134. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143733 pmid:26726963
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Murray JD,
    2. Jaramillo J,
    3. Wang XJ
    (2017) Working memory and decision-making in a frontoparietal circuit model. J Neurosci 37:12167–12186. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0343-17.2017 pmid:29114071
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  94. ↵
    1. Neuner I,
    2. Arrubla J,
    3. Werner CJ,
    4. Hitz K,
    5. Boers F,
    6. Kawohl W,
    7. Shah NJ
    (2014) The default mode network and EEG regional spectral power: a simultaneous fMRI-EEG study. PLoS One 9:e88214. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088214 pmid:24505434
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Nitz DA
    (2006) Tracking route progression in the posterior parietal cortex. Neuron 49:747–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.01.037 pmid:16504949
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. ↵
    1. Paulk AC,
    2. Zelmann R,
    3. Crocker B,
    4. Widge AS,
    5. Dougherty DD,
    6. Eskandar EN,
    7. Weisholtz DS,
    8. Richardson RM,
    9. Cosgrove GR,
    10. Williams ZM,
    11. Cash SS
    (2022) Local and distant cortical responses to single pulse intracranial stimulation in the human brain are differentially modulated by specific stimulation parameters. Brain Stimul 15:491–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2022.02.017 pmid:35247646
    OpenUrlPubMed
  97. ↵
    1. Peterson RA,
    2. Cavanaugh JE
    (2018) Ordered quantile normalization: a semiparametric transformation built for the cross-validation era. J Appl Stat 82:2312–2327.
    OpenUrl
  98. ↵
    1. Preston AR,
    2. Eichenbaum H
    (2013) Interplay of hippocampus and prefrontal cortex in memory. Curr Biol 23:R764–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.05.041 pmid:24028960
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. ↵
    1. Qi XL,
    2. Elworthy AC,
    3. Lambert BC,
    4. Constantinidis C
    (2015) Representation of remembered stimuli and task information in the monkey dorsolateral prefrontal and posterior parietal cortex. J Neurophysiol 113:44–57. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00413.2014 pmid:25298389
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. ↵
    1. Qin S,
    2. Cho S,
    3. Chen T,
    4. Rosenberg-Lee M,
    5. Geary DC,
    6. Menon V
    (2014) Hippocampal-neocortical functional reorganization underlies children's cognitive development. Nat Neurosci 17:1263–1269. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3788 pmid:25129076
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. ↵
    1. Rajasethupathy P,
    2. Sankaran S,
    3. Marshel JH,
    4. Kim CK,
    5. Ferenczi E,
    6. Lee SY,
    7. Berndt A,
    8. Ramakrishnan C,
    9. Jaffe A,
    10. Lo M,
    11. Liston C,
    12. Deisseroth K
    (2015) Projections from neocortex mediate top-down control of memory retrieval. Nature 526:653–659. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15389 pmid:26436451
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. ↵
    1. Ramirez-Zamora A, et al
    . (2020) Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Deep Brain Stimulation Think Tank: Advances in Neurophysiology, Adaptive DBS, Virtual Reality, Neuroethics and Technology. Front Hum Neurosci 14:54. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00054 pmid:32292333
    OpenUrlPubMed
  103. ↵
    1. Ranganath C,
    2. Ritchey M
    (2012) Two cortical systems for memory-guided behaviour. Nat Rev Neurosci 13:713–726. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3338 pmid:22992647
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. Rockland KS,
    2. Van Hoesen GW
    (1999) Some temporal and parietal cortical connections converge in CA1 of the primate hippocampus. Cereb Cortex 9:232–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/9.3.232 pmid:10355903
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. ↵
    1. Rolls ET
    (2018) The storage and recall of memories in the hippocampo-cortical system. Cell Tissue Res 373:577–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00441-017-2744-3 pmid:29218403
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. ↵
    1. Rolls ET
    (2019) The cingulate cortex and limbic systems for action, emotion, and memory. Handb Clin Neurol 166:23–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64196-0.00002-9 pmid:31731913
    OpenUrlPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Rossini PM,
    2. Rossi S
    (2007) Transcranial magnetic stimulation: diagnostic, therapeutic, and research potential. Neurology 68:484–488. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000250268.13789.b2 pmid:17296913
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  108. ↵
    1. Rugg MD
    (2022) Frontoparietal contributions to retrieval. In: Oxford handbook of human memory (Kahana MJ, Wagner AD, eds). Oxford: Oxford UP.
  109. ↵
    1. Rugg MD,
    2. Vilberg KL
    (2013) Brain networks underlying episodic memory retrieval. Curr Opin Neurobiol 23:255–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.11.005 pmid:23206590
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. ↵
    1. Rutishauser U,
    2. Reddy L,
    3. Mormann F,
    4. Sarnthein J
    (2021) The architecture of human memory: insights from human single-neuron recordings. J Neurosci 41:883–890. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1648-20.2020 pmid:33257323
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  111. ↵
    1. Schacter DL,
    2. Alpert NM,
    3. Savage CR,
    4. Rauch SL,
    5. Albert MS
    (1996) Conscious recollection and the human hippocampal formation: evidence from positron emission tomography. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:321–325. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.1.321 pmid:8552630
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  112. ↵
    1. Seeley WW,
    2. Menon V,
    3. Schatzberg AF,
    4. Keller J,
    5. Glover GH,
    6. Kenna H,
    7. Reiss AL,
    8. Greicius MD
    (2007) Dissociable intrinsic connectivity networks for salience processing and executive control. J Neurosci 27:2349–2356. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5587-06.2007 pmid:17329432
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  113. ↵
    1. Simons JS,
    2. Spiers HJ
    (2003) Prefrontal and medial temporal lobe interactions in long-term memory. Nat Rev Neurosci 4:637–648. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1178 pmid:12894239
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. ↵
    1. Solomon EA,
    2. Kragel JE,
    3. Sperling MR,
    4. Sharan A,
    5. Worrell G,
    6. Kucewicz M,
    7. Inman CS,
    8. Lega B,
    9. Davis KA,
    10. Stein JM,
    11. Jobst BC,
    12. Zaghloul KA,
    13. Sheth SA,
    14. Rizzuto DS,
    15. Kahana MJ
    (2017) Widespread theta synchrony and high-frequency desynchronization underlies enhanced cognition. Nat Commun 8:1704. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01763-2 pmid:29167419
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. ↵
    1. Solomon EA,
    2. Stein JM,
    3. Das S,
    4. Gorniak R,
    5. Sperling MR,
    6. Worrell G,
    7. Inman CS,
    8. Tan RJ,
    9. Jobst BC,
    10. Rizzuto DS,
    11. Kahana MJ
    (2019) Dynamic theta networks in the human medial temporal lobe support episodic memory. Curr Biol 29:1100–1111.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.02.020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  116. ↵
    1. Solomon EA,
    2. Sperling MR,
    3. Sharan AD,
    4. Wanda PA,
    5. Levy DF,
    6. Lyalenko A,
    7. Pedisich I,
    8. Rizzuto DS,
    9. Kahana MJ
    (2021) Theta-burst stimulation entrains frequency-specific oscillatory responses. Brain Stimul 14:1271–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2021.08.014 pmid:34428553
    OpenUrlPubMed
  117. ↵
    1. Spaak E,
    2. de Lange FP
    (2020) Hippocampal and prefrontal theta-band mechanisms underpin implicit spatial context learning. J Neurosci 40:191–202. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1660-19.2019 pmid:31699887
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  118. ↵
    1. Spitzer B,
    2. Haegens S
    (2017) Beyond the status quo: a role for beta oscillations in endogenous content (re)activation. eNeuro 4:ENEURO.0170-17.2017. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0170-17.2017
  119. ↵
    1. Sridharan D,
    2. Levitin DJ,
    3. Menon V
    (2008) A critical role for the right fronto-insular cortex in switching between central-executive and default-mode networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:12569–12574. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0800005105 pmid:18723676
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  120. ↵
    1. Stanley DA,
    2. Roy JE,
    3. Aoi MC,
    4. Kopell NJ,
    5. Miller EK
    (2018) Low-beta oscillations turn up the gain during category judgments. Cereb Cortex 28:116–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw356 pmid:29253255
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. ↵
    1. Suthana N,
    2. Haneef Z,
    3. Stern J,
    4. Mukamel R,
    5. Behnke E,
    6. Knowlton B,
    7. Fried I
    (2012) Memory enhancement and deep-brain stimulation of the entorhinal area. N Engl J Med 366:502–510. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1107212 pmid:22316444
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. ↵
    1. Symanski CA,
    2. Bladon JH,
    3. Kullberg ET,
    4. Miller P,
    5. Jadhav SP
    (2022) Rhythmic coordination and ensemble dynamics in the hippocampal-prefrontal network during odor-place associative memory and decision making. Elife 11:e79545. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79545
    OpenUrl
  123. ↵
    1. Tanigawa H,
    2. Majima K,
    3. Takei R,
    4. Kawasaki K,
    5. Sawahata H,
    6. Nakahara K,
    7. Iijima A,
    8. Suzuki T,
    9. Kamitani Y,
    10. Hasegawa I
    (2022) Decoding distributed oscillatory signals driven by memory and perception in the prefrontal cortex. Cell Rep 39:110676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110676 pmid:35417680
    OpenUrlPubMed
  124. ↵
    1. Tort AB,
    2. Kramer MA,
    3. Thorn C,
    4. Gibson DJ,
    5. Kubota Y,
    6. Graybiel AM,
    7. Kopell NJ
    (2008) Dynamic cross-frequency couplings of local field potential oscillations in rat striatum and hippocampus during performance of a T-maze task. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:20517–20522. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810524105 pmid:19074268
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  125. ↵
    1. Tulving E,
    2. Kapur S,
    3. Markowitsch HJ,
    4. Craik FI,
    5. Habib R,
    6. Houle S
    (1994) Neuroanatomical correlates of retrieval in episodic memory: auditory sentence recognition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:2012–2015. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.91.6.2012 pmid:8134341
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  126. ↵
    1. Uhlhaas PJ,
    2. Singer W
    (2012) Neuronal dynamics and neuropsychiatric disorders: toward a translational paradigm for dysfunctional large-scale networks. Neuron 75:963–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.09.004 pmid:22998866
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. ↵
    1. Uncapher MR,
    2. Wagner AD
    (2009) Posterior parietal cortex and episodic encoding: insights from fMRI subsequent memory effects and dual-attention theory. Neurobiol Learn Mem 91:139–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2008.10.011 pmid:19028591
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  128. ↵
    1. van der Plas M,
    2. Braun V,
    3. Stauch BJ,
    4. Hanslmayr S
    (2021) Stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with slow rTMS enhances verbal memory formation. PLoS Biol 19:e3001363. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001363 pmid:34582432
    OpenUrlPubMed
  129. ↵
    1. van Kesteren MT,
    2. Fernández G,
    3. Norris DG,
    4. Hermans EJ
    (2010) Persistent schema-dependent hippocampal-neocortical connectivity during memory encoding and postencoding rest in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:7550–7555. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914892107 pmid:20363957
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  130. ↵
    1. Vincent JL,
    2. Snyder AZ,
    3. Fox MD,
    4. Shannon BJ,
    5. Andrews JR,
    6. Raichle ME,
    7. Buckner RL
    (2006) Coherent spontaneous activity identifies a hippocampal-parietal memory network. J Neurophysiol 96:3517–3531. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00048.2006 pmid:16899645
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. ↵
    1. Vitek JL
    (2002) Mechanisms of deep brain stimulation: excitation or inhibition. Mov Disord 17[Suppl 3]:S69–S72. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.10144 pmid:11948757
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  132. ↵
    1. Vogt BA,
    2. Pandya DN
    (1987) Cingulate cortex of the rhesus monkey: II. Cortical afferents. J Comp Neurol 262:271–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902620208 pmid:3624555
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. ↵
    1. Wagner AD,
    2. Paré-Blagoev EJ,
    3. Clark J,
    4. Poldrack RA
    (2001) Recovering meaning: left prefrontal cortex guides controlled semantic retrieval. Neuron 31:329–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(01)00359-2 pmid:11502262
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  134. ↵
    1. Wagner AD,
    2. Shannon BJ,
    3. Kahn I,
    4. Buckner RL
    (2005) Parietal lobe contributions to episodic memory retrieval. Trends Cogn Sci 9:445–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.001 pmid:16054861
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  135. ↵
    1. Wang JX,
    2. Rogers LM,
    3. Gross EZ,
    4. Ryals AJ,
    5. Dokucu ME,
    6. Brandstatt KL,
    7. Hermiller MS,
    8. Voss JL
    (2014) Targeted enhancement of cortical-hippocampal brain networks and associative memory. Science 345:1054–1057. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1252900 pmid:25170153
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  136. ↵
    1. Wang MY,
    2. Wang J,
    3. Zhou J,
    4. Guan YG,
    5. Zhai F,
    6. Liu CQ,
    7. Xu FF,
    8. Han YX,
    9. Yan ZF,
    10. Luan GM
    (2017) Identification of the epileptogenic zone of temporal lobe epilepsy from stereo-electroencephalography signals: a phase transfer entropy and graph theory approach. Neuroimage Clin 16:184–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2017.07.022 pmid:28794979
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  137. ↵
    1. Watrous AJ,
    2. Tandon N,
    3. Conner CR,
    4. Pieters T,
    5. Ekstrom AD
    (2013) Frequency-specific network connectivity increases underlie accurate spatiotemporal memory retrieval. Nat Neurosci 16:349–356. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3315 pmid:23354333
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  138. ↵
    1. Wutz A,
    2. Loonis R,
    3. Roy JE,
    4. Donoghue JA,
    5. Miller EK
    (2018) Different levels of category abstraction by different dynamics in different prefrontal areas. Neuron 97:716–726.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.01.009 pmid:29395915
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  139. ↵
    1. Yadav N,
    2. Noble C,
    3. Niemeyer JE,
    4. Terceros A,
    5. Victor J,
    6. Liston C,
    7. Rajasethupathy P
    (2022) Prefrontal feature representations drive memory recall. Nature 608:153–160. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04936-2 pmid:35831504
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  140. ↵
    1. Yeh N,
    2. Rose NS
    (2019) How can transcranial magnetic stimulation be used to modulate episodic memory? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol 10:993. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00993 pmid:31263433
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  141. ↵
    1. Zhang W,
    2. Guo L,
    3. Liu D
    (2022) Concurrent interactions between prefrontal cortex and hippocampus during a spatial working memory task. Brain Struct Funct 227:1735–1755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-022-02469-y pmid:35187601
    OpenUrlPubMed
  142. ↵
    1. Zhou Y,
    2. Rosen MC,
    3. Swaminathan SK,
    4. Masse NY,
    5. Zhu O,
    6. Freedman DJ
    (2021) Distributed functions of prefrontal and parietal cortices during sequential categorical decisions. Elife 10:e58782. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58782
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 43 (17)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 43, Issue 17
26 Apr 2023
  • 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.
Concurrent- and After-Effects of Medial Temporal Lobe Stimulation on Directed Information Flow to and from Prefrontal and Parietal Cortices during Memory Formation
(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
Concurrent- and After-Effects of Medial Temporal Lobe Stimulation on Directed Information Flow to and from Prefrontal and Parietal Cortices during Memory Formation
Anup Das, Vinod Menon
Journal of Neuroscience 26 April 2023, 43 (17) 3159-3175; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1728-22.2023

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
Concurrent- and After-Effects of Medial Temporal Lobe Stimulation on Directed Information Flow to and from Prefrontal and Parietal Cortices during Memory Formation
Anup Das, Vinod Menon
Journal of Neuroscience 26 April 2023, 43 (17) 3159-3175; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1728-22.2023
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google 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

  • causal circuits in episodic memory
  • deep brain stimulation
  • directed information flow
  • human intracranial EEG
  • medial temporal lobe
  • prefrontal and parietal cortices

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

  • Structure and Function of Neuronal Circuits Linking Ventrolateral Preoptic Nucleus and Lateral Hypothalamic Area
  • Parvalbumin-Positive Interneurons in the Medial Prefrontal Cortex Regulate Stress-Induced Fear Extinction Impairments in Male and Female Rats
  • Spinal Basis of Direction Control during Locomotion in Larval Zebrafish
Show more Research Articles

Behavioral/Cognitive

  • Learning a Model of Shape Selectivity in V4 Cells Reveals Shape Encoding Mechanisms in the Brain
  • A Fluid Self-Concept: How the Brain Maintains Coherence and Positivity across an Interconnected Self-Concept While Incorporating Social Feedback
  • A Texture Statistics Encoding Model Reveals Hierarchical Feature Selectivity across Human Visual Cortex
Show more Behavioral/Cognitive
  • 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
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 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.