Memory systems 2018 – Towards a new paradigm

Abstract

The multiple memory systems theory (MMS) postulates that the brain stores information based on the independent and parallel activity of a number of modules, each with distinct properties, dynamics, and neural basis. Much of the evidence for this theory comes from dissociation studies indicating that damage to restricted brain areas cause selective types of memory deficits. MMS has been the prevalent paradigm in memory research for more than thirty years, even as it has been adjusted several times to accommodate new data. However, recent empirical results indicating that the memory systems are not always dissociable constitute a challenge to fundamental tenets of the current theory because they suggest that representations formed by individual memory systems can contribute to more than one type of memory-driven behavioral strategy. This problem can be addressed by applying a dynamic network perspective to memory architecture. According to this view, memory networks can reconfigure or transiently couple in response to environmental demands. Within this context, the neural network underlying a specific memory system can act as an independent unit or as an integrated component of a higher order meta-network. This dynamic network model proposes a way in which empirical evidence that challenges the idea of distinct memory systems can be incorporated within a modular memory architecture. The model also provides a framework to account for the complex interactions among memory systems demonstrated at the behavioral level. Advances in the study of dynamic networks can generate new ideas to experimentally manipulate and control memory in basic or clinical research.

The Margins of the Language Network in the Brain

“…These three networks are linked together in hub regions, comprising the anterior temporal lobe, posterior middle temporal gyrus, posterior intraparietal sulcus, angular gyrus, and parts of superior and middle frontal gyrus. In general, depending on task demands, for semantic processing various memory systems may be recruited and temporarily linked together, or single subsystems can locally get expanded or diminished, as outlined by a "multiple memory systems theory" (Ferbinteanu, 2019).…”

“…Based on connectivity analyses, a somewhat extended multidemand network has been described, comprising three major parts: (1) a subcortical sensation/action-related part, (2) a frontal lobe part related to attention, language, working memory, and sensation, and (3) a large-distance network comprising the inferior frontal junction, inferior parietal sulcus, dorsal premotor cortex, and left inferior temporal gyrus, serving, among others, abstract thinking and some language functions (Camilleri et al, 2018). In general, the MDS, and in particular the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex as one or its centers, also serves as a link for connecting various other networks and memory systems, depending on task demands (Ferbinteanu, 2019).…”

Interindividual differences in memory system local field potential activity predict behavioral strategy on a dual‐solution T‐maze

“…Multiple memory systems appear to support navigation of the environment including a hippocampal‐dependent “place” system reliant upon external spatial cues and a striatal‐dependent “response” system reliant upon egocentric body turns (Ferbinteanu, 2019; Gold et al, 2013; Johnson, van der Meer, & Redish, 2007; Mizumori, Yeshenko, Gill, & Davis, 2004; Packard & Goodman, 2013; Tolman, 1949). In the present study, place and response strategies were equally effective for learning the location of an appetitive reward (i.e., number of trials to criterion did not significantly differ by behavioral strategy).…”

“…Consistent with this idea, we also observed that VTE decreased in association with learning. Thus, while distinct behavioral strategies contribute to behavioral flexibility across diverse environmental conditions (Ferbinteanu, 2019; Goodroe et al, 2018; O'Doherty, Cockburn, & Pauli, 2017; Packard & Goodman, 2013), a deliberative place strategy may impose additional cognitive demands than a habitual response strategy. Mechanisms that enable an animal to select an appropriate navigational strategy in response to external conditions and/or internal needs are therefore critical for generating optimal behavior (Shelton et al, 2013).…”

“…Behavioral strategy on the dual‐solution T‐maze can be experimentally biased by varying either external maze conditions or the internal state of test subjects (Chersi & Burgess, 2015; Ferbinteanu, 2019; Goodroe, Starnes, & Brown, 2018; Packard & Goodman, 2013; Retailleau, Etienne, Guthrie, & Boraud, 2012). In the presence of heterogeneous spatial cues, rats and humans typically navigate this maze using a spatial map (“place strategy”).…”