Bidirectional Modulation of Recognition Memory

Ho, J.P.Y.; Poeta, Devon L.; Jacobson, Tara K.; Zolnik, Timothy A.; Neske, Garrett T.; Connors, Barry W.; Burwell, Rebecca D.

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2278-15.2015

Cited by 28 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies have used visually stimuli in the upper visual field which require approach behaviors (Harvey, Collman, Dombeck, & Tank, 2009; Scott, Constantinople, Erlich, Tank, & Brody, 2015). Conversely, other studies have employed stimuli which occur in the lower visual field, and which require avoidance behaviors (Ho et al, 2015; Manita et al, 2015). However, in these studies the stimuli have usually been presented a large number of times and have been associated with either a positive or negative outcome.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Segregated fronto‐cortical and midbrain connections in the mouse and their relation to approach and avoidance orienting behaviors

Savage

McQuade

Thiele

2017

J of Comparative Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The orchestration of orienting behaviors requires the interaction of many cortical and subcortical areas, for example the superior colliculus (SC), as well as prefrontal areas responsible for top–down control. Orienting involves different behaviors, such as approach and avoidance. In the rat, these behaviors are at least partially mapped onto different SC subdomains, the lateral (SCl) and medial (SCm), respectively. To delineate the circuitry involved in the two types of orienting behavior in mice, we injected retrograde tracer into the intermediate and deep layers of the SCm and SCl, and thereby determined the main input structures to these subdomains. Overall the SCm receives larger numbers of afferents compared to the SCl. The prefrontal cingulate area (Cg), visual, oculomotor, and auditory areas provide strong input to the SCm, while prefrontal motor area 2 (M2), and somatosensory areas provide strong input to the SCl. The prefrontal areas Cg and M2 in turn connect to different cortical and subcortical areas, as determined by anterograde tract tracing. Even though connectivity pattern often overlap, our labeling approaches identified segregated neural circuits involving SCm, Cg, secondary visual cortices, auditory areas, and the dysgranular retrospenial cortex likely to be involved in avoidance behaviors. Conversely, SCl, M2, somatosensory cortex, and the granular retrospenial cortex comprise a network likely involved in approach/appetitive behaviors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Segregated fronto‐cortical and midbrain connections in the mouse and their relation to approach and avoidance orienting behaviors

Savage

McQuade

Thiele

2017

J of Comparative Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The PER has been shown repeatedly to be necessary for the recognition of familiar objects (Ennaceur and Aggleton, ; Winters and Bussey, ) and to have different neural signatures for familiar and novel objects (Zhu and Brown, ; Wan et al, ). Recently, our laboratory showed that PER stimulation at specific frequencies influences behavioral exploration of familiarity and novelty (Ho et al, ), suggesting the PER is part of a circuit that upregulates and downregulates exploratory behavior based on current surroundings and internal states.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subcortical connections of the perirhinal, postrhinal, and entorhinal cortices of the rat. I. afferents

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study we characterized the subcortical afferents for the rat PER areas 35 and 36, POR, and the lateral and medial entorhinal areas (LEA and MEA). We analyzed 33 retrograde tract-tracing experiments distributed across the five regions. For each experiment, we estimated the total numbers, percentages, and densities of labeled cells in 36 subcortical structures and nuclei distributed across septum, basal ganglia, claustrum, amygdala, olfactory structures, thalamus, and hypothalamus. We found that the complement of subcortical inputs differs across the five regions, especially the PER and POR. The PER receives input from the reuniens, suprageniculate, and medial geniculate thalamic nuclei as well as the amygdala. Overall, the subcortical inputs to the PER are consistent with a role in perception, multimodal processing, and the formation of associations that include the motivational significance of individual items and objects. Subcortical inputs to the POR were dominated by the dorsal thalamus, particularly the lateral posterior nucleus, a region implicated in visuospatial attention. The complement of subcortical inputs to the POR is consistent with a role in representing and monitoring the local spatial context. We also report that, in addition to the PER, the LEA and the medial band of the MEA also receive strong amygdala input. In contrast, subcortical input to the POR and the MEA lateral band includes much less amygdala input and is dominated by dorsal thalamic nuclei, particularly nuclei involved in spatial information processing. Like the cortical inputs, the patterns of subcortical inputs to these regions are consistent both with the view that the dorsal hippocampus is important for spatial cognition and the ventral hippocampus is important for affective cognition, and the view that they provide considerable functional integration. We conclude that the patterns of subcortical inputs to the PER, POR, and the entorhinal LEA and MEA provide further evidence for functional differentiation in the medial temporal lobe.

show abstract

“…Consequently, the lateral entorhinal cortex could help place objects in the context of other local/proximal cues (Neunuebel et al, ). Thus, while perirhinal cortex is sufficient to signal object familiarity (Ho et al, ), interactions with the hippocampus, via entorhinal cortex, are required for object‐based associative learning. The present study examined this information transfer using a combination of lesions and c‐ fos imaging.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Models of medial temporal lobe function distinguish two pathways that converge upon the hippocampus, one for “what (item)” information, the other for “where (context)” information (Eichenbaum et al, ; Ranganath and Ritchey, ). The perirhinal cortex occupies a central position in the “what” pathway as it conveys high‐resolution object information to the entorhinal cortex and hippocampus (Fernandez and Tendolkar, ; Bussey and Saksida, ; Deshmukh et al, ; Suzuki and Naya, ), while also signaling the novelty/familiarity of this same information (Brown and Aggleton, ; Ho et al, ). Evidence for this “what” pathway includes findings from rat lesion studies, which show how perirhinal cortex damage disrupts object recognition (Brown and Aggleton, ; Winters et al, ), alongside evidence for the joint involvement of the perirhinal cortex with the hippocampus for associative object recognition tasks, such as discriminating a familiar object set in a novel spatial location (Barker and Warburton, ; Warburton and Brown, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting and discriminating novel objects: The impact of perirhinal cortex disconnection on hippocampal activity patterns

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perirhinal cortex provides object‐based information and novelty/familiarity information for the hippocampus. The necessity of these inputs was tested by comparing hippocampal c‐fos expression in rats with or without perirhinal lesions. These rats either discriminated novel from familiar objects (Novel‐Familiar) or explored pairs of novel objects (Novel‐Novel). Despite impairing Novel‐Familiar discriminations, the perirhinal lesions did not affect novelty detection, as measured by overall object exploration levels (Novel‐Novel condition). The perirhinal lesions also largely spared a characteristic network of linked c‐fos expression associated with novel stimuli (entorhinal cortex→CA3→distal CA1→proximal subiculum). The findings show: I) that perirhinal lesions preserve behavioral sensitivity to novelty, whilst still impairing the spontaneous ability to discriminate novel from familiar objects, II) that the distinctive patterns of hippocampal c‐fos activity promoted by novel stimuli do not require perirhinal inputs, III) that entorhinal Fos counts (layers II and III) increase for novelty discriminations, IV) that hippocampal c‐fos networks reflect proximal‐distal connectivity differences, and V) that discriminating novelty creates different pathway interactions from merely detecting novelty, pointing to top‐down effects that help guide object selection. © 2016 The Authors Hippocampus Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Bidirectional Modulation of Recognition Memory

Cited by 28 publications

References 74 publications

Segregated fronto‐cortical and midbrain connections in the mouse and their relation to approach and avoidance orienting behaviors

Segregated fronto‐cortical and midbrain connections in the mouse and their relation to approach and avoidance orienting behaviors

Subcortical connections of the perirhinal, postrhinal, and entorhinal cortices of the rat. I. afferents

Detecting and discriminating novel objects: The impact of perirhinal cortex disconnection on hippocampal activity patterns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About