Cited by 807Neural dynamics and brain functionNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Working Memory 2.0

Open access
Miller, Earl K., Lundqvist, Mikael, Bastos, André M.·2018·Neuron

Abstract

Working memory is the fundamental function by which we break free from reflexive input-output reactions to gain control over our own thoughts. It has two types of mechanisms: online maintenance of information and its volitional or executive control. Classic models proposed persistent spiking for maintenance but have not explicitly addressed executive control. We review recent theoretical and empirical studies that suggest updates and additions to the classic model. Synaptic weight changes between sparse bursts of spiking strengthen working memory maintenance. Executive control acts via interplay between network oscillations in gamma (30-100 Hz) in superficial cortical layers (layers 2 and 3) and alpha and beta (10-30 Hz) in deep cortical layers (layers 5 and 6). Deep-layer alpha and beta are associated with top-down information and inhibition. It regulates the flow of bottom-up sensory information associated with superficial layer gamma. We propose that interactions between different rhythms in distinct cortical layers underlie working memory maintenance and its volitional control.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.09.023

Cites

167 of 167 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • All across cortex, gamma power (>35 Hz)/spiking is higher during bottom-up sensory inputs.

    “A key observation is that, all across cortex, gamma power (>35 Hz)/spiking is higher during bottom-up sensory inputs.”

    From Layer and rhythm specificity for predictive routing (2020) · cites this paper as [29]

    The section “Beta in deep-layer cortex interacts with gamma in superficial-layer cortex” (page unavailable) says bottom-up gamma and informative spiking in sensory areas are typically elevated during sensory stimulation. But “Mechanisms of gamma/beta interplay” (page unavailable) distinguishes prefrontal cortex, where sensory drive has less impact and gamma can occur without a stimulus. The copy therefore supports the sensory-area pattern, not the unqualified claim that it holds all across cortex; the cited passages also do not establish the >35 Hz cutoff. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Gamma power/spiking is anticorrelated with alpha/beta (8 to 30 Hz) power, which is higher under conditions of top-down control (e.g., attention and response inhibition).

    “They are anticorrelated with alpha/beta (8 to 30 Hz) power (26–29), which is higher under conditions of top-down control (e.g., attention and response inhibition) (30–34).”

    From Layer and rhythm specificity for predictive routing (2020) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Introduction and “What is the alternative?” state that alpha/beta and gamma activity are anticorrelated; “What about alpha/beta?” links alpha/beta to top-down information and inhibition. But that section says attention increases gamma for attended inputs, while alpha/beta increases for unattended locations or modalities. It does not establish the claim’s unqualified assertion that alpha/beta power is higher during attention or its specific example of response inhibition. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Fuster JM, and Alexander GE (1971b). Neuron activity related to short-term memory. Science 173, 652– 654. 4998337
  2. Lundqvist M, Herman P, and Lansner A (2011b). Theta and gamma power increases and alpha/beta power decreases with memory load in an attractor network model. J Cogn Neurosci 23, 3008– 3020. 21452933
  3. Spaak E, Watanabe K, Funahashi S, and Stokes MG (2017b). Stable and dynamic coding for working memory in primate prefrontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 3364– 16. 28559375 PMC5511881

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miller, E. K., Lundqvist, M., & Bastos, A. M.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, Earl K.
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
100
Issue
2
Pages
463-475
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2898524098
Cited by
797
References
165
Citations by year
2026: 100 · 2025: 130 · 2024: 134 · 2023: 143 · 2022: 116 · 2021: 87 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NIMH (R37MH087027)
  • ONR (MURI N00014-16-1-2832)
  • The Picower Fellows Program
  • MIT Picower Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
working memory, working memory maintenance, executive function, synaptic plasticity, gamma oscillations, alpha oscillations, beta oscillations, cortical layers, top-down control, neural oscillations
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Neurological

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