CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 157Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsIdentity, Memory, and Therapy

Differential contributions of hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex to self-projection and self-referential processing

Open access
Kurczek, Jake, Wechsler, Emily, Ahuja, Shreya, Jensen, Unni, Cohen, Neal J., Tranel, Daniel, Duff, Melissa·2015·Neuropsychologia
DOI 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.05.002PMC PMC4671497
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Converging evidence points to a neural network that supports a range of abilities including remembering the past, thinking about the future, and introspecting about oneself and others. Neuroimaging studies find hippocampal activation during event construction tasks, and patients with hippocampal amnesia are impaired in their ability to (re)construct events of the past and the future. Neuroimaging studies of constructed experiences similarly implicate the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), but it remains unknown whether the mPFC is critical for such processes. The current study compares performance of five patients with bilateral mPFC damage, six patients with bilateral hippocampal damage, and demographically matched comparison participants on an event construction task. Participants were given a neutral cue word and asked to (re)construct events across four time conditions: real past, imagined past, imagined present, and future. These event narratives were analyzed for the number of internal and external details to quantify the extent of episodic (re)experiencing. Given the literature on the involvement of the mPFC in self-referential processing, we also analyzed the event narratives for self-references. The patients with mPFC damage did not differ from healthy comparison participants in their ability to construct highly detailed episodic events across time periods but displayed disruptions in their incorporation of the self. Patients with hippocampal damage showed the opposite pattern; they were impaired in their ability to construct highly detailed episodic events across time periods but not in their incorporation of the self. The results suggest differential contributions of hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex to the distributed neural network for various forms of self-projection.

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.neuropsychologia.2015.05.002

Cites

117 of 117 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?

  • Reductions in episodic detail for both past and future events on the Autobiographical Interview and related procedures have been documented in multiple patient populations, including depression, PTSD, amnesic syndrome, Alzheimer's disease, temporal lobe epilepsy, schizophrenia, prefrontal lesions, and long-term opiate users.

    “Reductions in episodic detail for both past and future events using the AI and related procedures have also been documented in various patient populations”

    From Episodic Future Thinking: Mechanisms and Functions (2017) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Introduction reports fewer episodic details for both past and future events in patients with hippocampal amnesia using modified Autobiographical Interview procedures. The Results (§3.2.1; page unavailable) likewise find fewer episodic details across time periods in patients with hippocampal damage. The paper does not document the claim across most of the other listed populations, and its Results (§3.3.1) find no comparable reduction in patients with medial prefrontal lesions. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The vmPFC impairment in imagining is particularly pronounced when patients must imagine a broad scenario, while patients perform within the normal range when instructed to focus on a circumscribed moment within such a scenario.

    “This impairment seems to be particularly pronounced when patients have to imagine a broad scenario (e.g., hosting a dinner), because such patients have been shown to perform within the normal range of healthy controls when they are instructed to focus on a circumscribed moment within such a scenario (e.g., cutting vegetables; 25).”

    From Episodic Future Thinking: Mechanisms and Functions (2017) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Methods (§2.2) say participants described a specific moment within a larger event, and the Results (§3.3.1) report that patients with mPFC damage performed similarly to healthy comparisons on event-detail measures. The paper does not test those patients on broad-scenario narration against specific-moment narration, so it does not establish that their impairment is particularly pronounced for broad scenarios. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Some amnesic patients with hippocampal damage exhibit deficits when imagining future experiences, but not all studies reveal such deficits.

    “some amnesic patients with hippocampal damage also exhibit deficits when imagining future experiences (25–26), but not all studies reveal such deficits (28).”

    From Episodic Future Thinking: Mechanisms and Functions (2017) · cites this paper as [25]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kurczek, J., Wechsler, E., Ahuja, S., Jensen, U., Cohen, N. J., Tranel, D., & Duff, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • Thomson Reuters (United States) (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Duff, Melissa
ORCID
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-07
Volume
73
Pages
116-126
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.05.002
PMC
PMC4671497
OpenAlex
W312441591
Cited by
157
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 4
FWCI
11.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NIDCD (F32 DC008825)
  • NIMH (RO1 MH062500)
  • NINDS (P01 NS19632)
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
self-projection, self-referential processing, hippocampus, medial prefrontal cortex, medial temporal lobe, event construction, episodic memory, self-referential language, hippocampal amnesia
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Imagination, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Neural Pathways, Neuropsychological Tests, Self Concept, Thinking, Prefrontal Cortex, Memory, Episodic

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