4.3 Article

Neurocomputational Account of Memory and Perception: Thresholded and Graded Signals in the Hippocampus

期刊

HIPPOCAMPUS
卷 24, 期 12, 页码 1672-1686

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hipo.22345

关键词

computational model; perception; memory; recognition; recollection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent evidence suggests that the hippocampus, a region critical for long-term memory, also supports certain forms of high-level visual perception. A seemingly paradoxical finding is that, unlike the thresholded hippocampal signals associated with memory, the hippocampus produces graded, strength-based signals in perception. This article tests a neurocomputational model of the hippocampus, based on the complementary learning systems framework, to determine if the same model can account for both memory and perception, and whether it produces the appropriate thresholded and strength-based signals in these two types of tasks. The simulations showed that the hippocampus, and most prominently the CA1 subfield, produced graded signals when required to discriminate between highly similar stimuli in a perception task, but generated thresholded patterns of activity in recognition memory. A threshold was observed in recognition memory because pattern completion occurred for only some trials and completely failed to occur for others; conversely, in perception, pattern completion always occurred because of the high degree of item similarity. These results offer a neurocomputational account of the distinct hippocampal signals associated with perception and memory, and are broadly consistent with proposals that CA1 functions as a comparator of expected versus perceived events. We conclude that the hippocampal computations required for high-level perceptual discrimination are congruous with current neurocomputational models that account for recognition memory, and fit neatly into a broader description of the role of the hippocampus for the processing of complex relational information. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据