Cited by 93Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

Foreseeing the future: Occurrence probability of imagined future events modulates hippocampal activation

Weiler, Julia A., Suchan, Boris, Daum, Irene·2010·Hippocampus

Abstract

Episodic memory and episodic future thinking are known to share a set of brain regions. Potential differences in activation patterns associated with the two conditions are as yet inconclusive, in particular with respect to hippocampal involvement. Hippocampal activation is modulated by a range of phenomenal qualities during the imagination of both past and future events (Addis et al. (2004) Hippocampus 14:752–762; Addis and Schacter (2008) Hippocampus 18:227–237). A relevant variable in this regard is the occurrence probability of an episode, which varies for future but not past events and thus cannot be equated across conditions. Using parametric modulation analysis, we investigated the effect of occurrence probability of imagined future events on brain activation patterns, while effects of temporal distance, amount of details, and emotionality were controlled for. Activation of right anterior hippocampus increased with decreasing occurrence probability, presumably reflecting higher processing demands during binding of more disparate details for unlikely events. This finding may contribute to the understanding of previously reported inconsistent results concerning hippocampal involvement during the imagination of past and future events. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hipo.20695

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The anterior hippocampal imagination effect is stronger for specific future simulations, for simulations built de novo, and for especially novel events.

    “This effect is more apparent when the future simulations are specific (Addis, Cheng, Roberts, & Schacter, 2011), are constructed de novo (van Mulukom, Schacter, Corballis, & Addis, 2013) and are especially novel (e.g., implausible future events; Weiler, Suchan, & Daum, 2010).”

    From Mental Time Travel? A Neurocognitive Model of Event Simulation. (2020) · cites this paper as Weiler, Suchan, & Daum, 2010

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 93

Authors
Weiler, J. A., Suchan, B., & Daum, I.
Affiliations
Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
Corresponding author
Weiler, Julia A.
Venue
Hippocampus
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-08-19
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
685-690
ISSN
  • 1050-9631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-1063
OpenAlex
W2048057792
Cited by
93
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 9
FWCI
3.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Hippocampus (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
Keywords
episodic future thinking, episodic memory, probability of occurrence, hippocampal activation, temporal distance, emotionality
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Imagination, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review