4.7 Article

Lesion of the hippocampus selectively enhances LEC's activity during recognition memory based on familiarity

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-98509-4

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. DFG [Sonderforschungsbereich 874]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the relationship between the hippocampus and the LEC and PER in recognition memory, finding that hippocampal lesions enhance LEC activity during familiarity judgments but not in PER. These findings suggest that different mechanisms support familiarity in LEC and PER.
The sense of familiarity for events is crucial for successful recognition memory. However, the neural substrate and mechanisms supporting familiarity remain unclear. A major controversy in memory research is whether the parahippocampal areas, especially the lateral entorhinal (LEC) and the perirhinal (PER) cortices, support familiarity or whether the hippocampus (HIP) does. In addition, it is unclear if LEC, PER and HIP interact within this frame. Here, we especially investigate if LEC and PER's contribution to familiarity depends on hippocampal integrity. To do so, we compare LEC and PER neural activity between rats with intact hippocampus performing on a human to rat translational task relying on both recollection and familiarity and rats with hippocampal lesions that have been shown to then rely on familiarity to perform the same task. Using high resolution Immediate Early Gene imaging, we report that hippocampal lesions enhance activity in LEC during familiarity judgments but not PER's. These findings suggest that different mechanisms support familiarity in LEC and PER and led to the hypothesis that HIP might exert a tonic inhibition on LEC during recognition memory that is released when HIP is compromised, possibly constituting a compensatory mechanism in aging and amnesic patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available