Cited by 467Memory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 145 of the 146 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 121 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

A neoHebbian framework for episodic memory; role of dopamine-dependent late LTP

Open access
Lisman, John, Grace, Anthony A., Duzel, Emrah·2011·Trends in Neurosciences

Abstract

According to the Hebb rule, the change in the strength of a synapse depends only on the local interaction of presynaptic and postsynaptic events. Studies at many types of synapses indicate that the early phase of long-term potentiation (LTP) has Hebbian properties. However, it is now clear that the Hebb rule does not account for late LTP; this requires an additional signal that is non-local. For novel information and motivational events such as rewards, this signal at hippocampal CA1 synapses is mediated by the neuromodulator, dopamine. In this Review, we discuss recent experimental findings that support the view that this “neoHebbian” framework can account for memory behavior in a variety of learning situations.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review proposes a neoHebbian framework in which Hebbian early LTP at hippocampal CA1 synapses is supplemented by a third, non-local dopamine signal required for late LTP and stable episodic memory. It synthesizes rodent and human evidence that novelty, reward, and aversive/motivational events trigger dopamine release that selectively stabilizes memory at long delays and can enhance temporally nearby weak memories via a synaptic tag-and-capture “penumbra.”

Key findings

  • Late LTP in CA1 requires D1 dopamine receptor signaling: D1 antagonists, D1 receptor deletion, or dopamine depletion block late LTP, while early LTP is less affected. In a rodent one-trial reward-location memory task, intrahippocampal D1/D5 antagonist SCH23390 before encoding impaired memory at 24 hours but not at 30 minutes.
  • Dopamine neurons burst in response to reward, novelty, and aversive stimuli; bursts last about 200–500 msec, have interspike intervals <100 msec, and generally contain about 3–5 spikes, with up to 50% of dopamine neurons silent at baseline. In mice, 89% of VTA dopaminergic neurons responded with activation to a conditioned reward, the majority showed suppression to fearful events, and 25% responded with excitation to both positive and fearful events.
  • Human fMRI studies show SN/VTA activation by reward, novelty, and aversive events. Reward prospect improved long-term episodic memory, with enhancement greater at late timepoints (3 weeks vs. 20 minutes) and consistently after 24-hour retention intervals.
  • Novelty can create a behavioral “penumbra”: in rodents, a single reward-location exposure normally forgotten within hours persisted for at least 24 hours if preceded or followed within 30 minutes by novelty exploration; in humans, novel scenes presented 5 minutes before pre-familiarized words increased later recollection, with a stronger effect at 24 hours than at 30 minutes.

Methods

  • Review article; no new experimental data are reported.
  • Synthesizes electrophysiological, pharmacological, genetic, and behavioral studies in rodents, plus human fMRI, PET, and electrophysiological findings.
  • Main analysis is a narrative integration of evidence around dopamine-dependent late LTP, dopamine neuron firing properties, and the synaptic tag-and-capture model.

Limitations

  • The paper states that more human studies are needed, especially on dopaminergic manipulations and long-term memory; selective D1/D5 compounds are not readily available for healthy humans, and fMRI cannot distinguish SN/VTA subregions or tonic versus bursting modes. It also notes unresolved questions about the duration of hippocampal dopamine signals, penumbra properties, and the relative consolidation of rewarding versus aversive events in humans.
  • Evident from the text: as a review, it does not use a systematic search or meta-analytic method, and some proposed circuitry—such as perirhinal cortical information generating phasic dopamine responses—is explicitly described as needing experimental testing.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tins.2011.07.006

Cites

145 of 145 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 121 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 78 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 45
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 16
58 of 58
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is relatively little work comparing the consolidation of rewarding and aversive events in humans.

    “Surprisingly, there is relatively little work comparing the consolidation of rewarding and aversive events (e.g. losses) in humans (although there is extensive work on the consolidation of emotionally negative stimuli).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The conditions that lead to activation of the human dopamine system, as judged by fMRI signals, are similar to the conditions leading to activation in non-primate mammals.

    “The conditions that lead to activation of the human dopamine system, as judged by fMRI signals, are similar to the conditions leading to activation in non-primate mammals.”
2 of 2

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 146 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Watson, J.S., trans. and ed. (1986) Cicero on Oratory and Orators (Landmarks in Rhetoric and Public Address), Southern Illinois University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 467

Metadata

Authors
Lisman, J., Grace, A. A., & Duzel, E.
Affiliations
  • Brandeis University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Lisman, John
Venue
Trends in Neurosciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-10
Volume
34
Issue
10
Pages
536-547
ISSN
0166-2236 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2060322330
Cited by
465
References
146
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 22
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trends in Neurosciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • DZNE Pub (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (2r01mh057440-26a1)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-57440, R01-MH057440, R37MH057440)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA 15408, R01DA027807)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS027337)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
episodic memory, long-term potentiation, dopamine, hippocampal CA1, Hebbian rule, synaptic plasticity, reward, memory formation
MeSH terms
Animals, Dopamine, Neuronal Plasticity, Synapses, Long-Term Potentiation, 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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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