4.7 Article

Neurons detect cognitive boundaries to structure episodic memories in humans

期刊

NATURE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 358-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41593-022-01020-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [U01NS103792, U01NS117839]
  2. NSF [1231216]
  3. Brain Canada
  4. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations
  5. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [1231216] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reveals that neurons in the human brain respond to cognitive boundaries, predicting memory encoding success and influencing subsequent recognition accuracy and event order memory. While experience is continuous, memories are organized discretely, with cognitive boundaries thought to play a key role in structuring memory.
Continuous experience is segmented into discrete mnemonic episodes. The authors identify neurons in the human brain whose responses to cognitive boundaries predict memory encoding success and mark timepoints that are reinstated during retrieval. While experience is continuous, memories are organized as discrete events. Cognitive boundaries are thought to segment experience and structure memory, but how this process is implemented remains unclear. We recorded the activity of single neurons in the human medial temporal lobe (MTL) during the formation and retrieval of memories with complex narratives. Here, we show that neurons responded to abstract cognitive boundaries between different episodes. Boundary-induced neural state changes during encoding predicted subsequent recognition accuracy but impaired event order memory, mirroring a fundamental behavioral tradeoff between content and time memory. Furthermore, the neural state following boundaries was reinstated during both successful retrieval and false memories. These findings reveal a neuronal substrate for detecting cognitive boundaries that transform experience into mnemonic episodes and structure mental time travel during retrieval.

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

4.7
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