Cited by 351Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeural dynamics and brain function

Hippocampal and neocortical contributions to memory: advances in the complementary learning systems framework

O'Reilly, Randall C, Norman, Kenneth A·2002·Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Abstract

The complementary learning systems framework provides a simple set of principles, derived from converging biological, psychological and computational constraints, for understanding the differential contributions of the neocortex and hippocampus to learning and memory. The central principles are that the neocortex has a low learning rate and uses overlapping distributed representations to extract the general statistical structure of the environment, whereas the hippocampus learns rapidly using separated representations to encode the details of specific events while minimizing interference. In recent years, we have instantiated these principles in working computational models, and have used these models to address human and animal learning and memory findings, across a wide range of domains and paradigms. Here, we review a few representative applications of our models, focusing on two domains: recognition memory and animal learning in the fear-conditioning paradigm. In both domains, the models have generated novel predictions that have been tested and confirmed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)02005-3

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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 two complementary memory systems-the hippocampal system and the neocortical sensori-motor areas-allow the coexistence of instances and abstractions, thus solving the two basic knowledge functions of an organism that needs to acquire both specifics and generalizations, and they prevent the problem of catastrophic interference suffered by purely implicit connectionist mechanisms.

    “The two complementary memory systems-the hippocampal system and the neocortical sensori-motor areas-allow the coexistence of instances and abstractions, thus solving the two basic knowledge functions of an organism that needs to be able to acquire both specifics ~”

    From AT THE INTERFACE: DYNAMIC INTERACTIONS OF EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE (2005) · cites this paper as O'Reilly & Norman, 2002

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O'Reilly, R. C., & Norman, K. A.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-12
Volume
6
Issue
12
Pages
505-510
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2104939199
Cited by
351
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 21
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
complementary learning systems, hippocampus, neocortex, memory, recognition memory, fear conditioning, computational models of learning, distributed representations, learning rate, interference minimization

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