The DOI matches its Crossref record; 115 of the 116 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Differential contributions of hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex to self-projection and self-referential processing
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
LOSS OF RECENT MEMORY AFTER BILATERAL HIPPOCAMPAL LESIONS
Scoville, W. B., & Milner, B. (1957) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.20.1.11 · Cited by 7,322
Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex
Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3 · Cited by 6,128
Memory and the hippocampus: A synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans.
Squire, L. R. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.2.195 · Cited by 5,376
Gusnard, D. A., Akbudak, E., Shulman, G. L., & Raichle, M. E. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.071043098 · Cited by 2,997
Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science.
Gallagher, S. (2000) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01417-5 · Cited by 2,881 · cited 1×
“…Levine (2002), the mPFC has been implicated in the more emotional aspects of autobiographical memory (Addis et al., 2004; Cabeza et al., 2004; Gilboa, 2004; Levine, 2004; Maguire et al., 2000) and theory of mind (Brunet et al., 2000; Calarge et al., 2003; Frith and Frith, 1999; Gallagher, 2000).”
Functional-anatomic fractionation of the brain’s default network
Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Reidler, J. S., Sepulcre, J., Poulin, R., & Buckner, R. L. (2010) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.02.005 · Cited by 2,767
Buckner, R. L., & Carroll, D. C. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.004 · Cited by 2,691
The MRC Psycholinguistic Database
Coltheart, M. (1981) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/14640748108400805 · Cited by 2,506
Remembering the past to imagine the future: the prospective brain
Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2007) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2213 · Cited by 2,394 · cited 5×
“…previous work has looked at performance using similar (although not identical) methods in patients with damage to other frontal regions (dorsomedial and ventrolateral PFC; regions outside the “core network” proposed by Schacter et al., 2007) as well as damage to posterior parietal cortices (PPC).”
InfluentialSpreng, R. N., Mar, R. A., & Kim, A. S. N. (2009) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.21029 · Cited by 2,143
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The brain’s default network: updated anatomy, physiology and evolving insights
Buckner, R. L., & DiNicola, L. M. (2019) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41583-019-0212-7 · Cited by 1,058
Episodic Future Thinking: Mechanisms and Functions
Schacter, D. L., Benoit, R. G., & Szpunar, K. K. (2017) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.06.002 · Cited by 771
The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction
Bubb, E. J., Metzler-Baddeley, C., & Aggleton, J. P. (2018) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.05.008 · Cited by 740
“A caveat concerns the need to know how cingulum bundle damage might affect the spontaneous recall of autobiographical memory, given how medial frontal damage can disrupt self-reference in memory recall (Kurczek et al., 2015) while cingulotomy can reduce spontaneous response generation (Cohen et al.”
Lieberman, M. D., Straccia, M. A., Meyer, M. L., Du, M., & Tan, K. M. (2019) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.12.021 · Cited by 282
Qin, P., Wang, M., & Northoff, G. (2020) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.05.004 · Cited by 223
Metadata
- 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
- Venue
- Neuropsychologia
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-07
- Volume
- 73
- Pages
- 116-126
- ISSN
- 0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
