A meta‐analysis of the relation between hippocampal volume and memory ability in typically developing children and adolescents

Abstract

Memory is supported by a network of brain regions, with the hippocampus serving a critical role in this cognitive process. Previous meta‐analyses on the association between hippocampal structure and memory have largely focused on adults. Multiple studies have since suggested that hippocampal volume is related to memory performance in children and adolescents; however, the strength and direction of this relation varies across reports, and thus, remains unclear. To further understand this brain–behavior relation, we conducted a meta‐analysis to investigate the association between hippocampal volume (assessed as total volume) and memory during typical development. Across 25 studies and 61 memory outcomes with 1357 participants, results showed a small, but significant, positive association between total hippocampal volume and memory performance. Estimates of the variability across studies in the relation between total volume and memory were not explained by differences in memory task type (delayed vs. immediate; relational vs. nonrelational), participant age range, or the method of normalization of hippocampal volumes. Overall, findings suggest that larger total hippocampal volume relates to better memory performance in children and adolescents and that this relation is similar across the memory types and age ranges assessed. To facilitate enhanced generalization across studies in the future, we discuss considerations for the field moving forward.

Distinct multivariate structural brain profiles are related to variations in short- and long-delay memory consolidation across children and young adults

“…First, our results extend previous univariate findings on the relations between brain measures and mnemonic processes in developmental cohorts. For example, studies showed that extended developmental trajectories of hippocampal head ( Botdorf et al, 2022 , Poppenk et al, 2013 ), hippocampal body subfields and EC ( Canada et al, 2019 , Keresztes et al, 2017 ), cerebellar ( Sussman et al, 2016 ), prefrontal ( Bauer et al, 2019 , Botdorf and Riggins, 2018 , Mills et al, 2016 , Mills et al, 2016 , Schlichting and Preston, 2015 , Sousa et al, 2018 , Sowell et al, 2001 ), parietal and occipital ( DeMaster and Ghetti, 2013 , Hebscher et al, 2019 , Himmer et al, 2019 , Karanian and Slotnick, 2015 ) regions are related to age-related differences in encoding and retrieval of memories. The brain profiles identified in our study extend the literature, showing that multivariate profiles comprised of these structural brain measures can also be related to memory retention across short and long delays.…”

“…As our task required both source memory and integration of semantic knowledge to form object-location associations, it may explain the role of hippocampal head in retention of across consolidation. In relation to this subiculum of hippocampal body ( Keresztes et al, 2022 ), CA1 hippocampal body subfields ( Riggins et al, 2018 ), and hippocampal head ( Botdorf et al, 2022 , Riggins et al, 2018 , Schlichting et al, 2017 ) was recently shown to undergo profound volumetric increase in middle childhood, indicating that the age-related increase in structural volume in these regions go hand in hand with improvement in long-delay memory consolidation.…”

“…The selection of structural ROIs was based on the review of the developmental literature on memory consolidation and related retrieval processes including structural MRI studies ( Østby et al, 2012 ), which identified the involvement of OFC and hippocampus, as well as functional MRI studies ( Andreasen et al, 1999 , Davachi et al, 2003 , DeMaster and Ghetti, 2013 , Fandakova et al, 2019 , Grill-Spector et al, 2001 , Karanian and Slotnick, 2015 , Kuhl et al, 2012 , Mella et al, 2021 , Milton et al, 2011 , Nishimura et al, 2015 , Ranganath and Ritchey, 2012 , Reagh and Yassa, 2014 , Simmonds et al, 2017 , Steinlin, 2007 , Timmann et al, 2010 , van Kesteren et al, 2012 ), which identified the involvement of vmPFC, vlPFC, rostral medial PFC, precuneus, LOC, EC, cerebellum, PHG in memory retrieval. Based on the findings that hippocampal subfields along the long axis may follow different developmental trajectories ( Botdorf et al, 2022 , Keresztes et al, 2017 , Keresztes et al, 2022 , Riggins et al, 2018 ) and be differentially involved in memory delays ( Atucha et al, 2021 , Poppenk et al, 2013 ) and underlying mnemonic processes of encoding and retention ( Botdorf et al, 2022 ), EC and hippocampal body subfield volumes and hippocampal head volume were also included as separate ROIs. The following corresponding regions of interest (ROI) were identified according to Desikan-Killiany atlas ( Desikan et al, 2006 ) for the (i) volumetric output: cerebellar cortex, EC, hippocampal head, and hippocampal body subfields volumes (i.e., DG-CA3, Subiculum (Sub), and CA1–2); (ii) cortical thickness output: inferior frontal cortex (IFG; comprised of pars opercularis, pars triangularis and pars orbitalis), medial OFC, lateral OFC, rostral middle frontal cortex, praecuneus, superior parietal cortex, inferior parietal cortex, parahippocampal cortex, and lateral occipital cortex.…”

Association of retinal nerve layers thickness and brain imaging in healthy young subjects from the i‐Share‐Bordeaux study

“…The retinal-brain connection revealed in our study posits questions about its implications: can the retinal layers also be related to variations in cognitive performance? Some studies conducted in young people suggested that brain MRI changes may be related to cognitive performance in different domains (Botdorf et al, 2022;Estrada et al, 2019;Lee et al, 2014;Tamnes et al, 2010Tamnes et al, , 2013. However, their cross-sectional design or short-term follow-up preclude drawing conclusions about longer-term cognition.…”

Associations between cortisol stress responses and limbic volume and thickness in young adults: An exploratory study

“…Other published effects mainly concerned the hippocampus, which was less reflected in our data. Given the function of this structure in the context of memory processing, this is remarkable, as one could possibly assume that brain morphological changes should occur in this region due to, for example, chronic stress experience (Botdorf et al, 2022; Hardcastle et al, 2020; Kim et al, 2015). Examining samples at risk in terms of associations between structural measures and acute stress responses could be a potential prospect at this point (Misaki et al, 2021).…”