Cited by 205Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesSpatial Cognition and Navigation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CA1 and CA3 differentially support spontaneous retrieval of episodic contexts within human hippocampal subfields

Open access
Dimsdale-Zucker, Halle R., Ritchey, Maureen, Ekstrom, Arne D., Yonelinas, Andrew P., Ranganath, Charan·2018·Nature Communications

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The hippocampus plays a critical role in spatial and episodic memory. Mechanistic models predict that hippocampal subfields have computational specializations that differentially support memory. However, there is little empirical evidence suggesting differences between the subfields, particularly in humans. To clarify how hippocampal subfields support human spatial and episodic memory, we developed a virtual reality paradigm where participants passively navigated through houses (spatial contexts) across a series of videos (episodic contexts). We then used multivariate analyses of high-resolution fMRI data to identify neural representations of contextual information during recollection. Multi-voxel pattern similarity analyses revealed that CA1 represented objects that shared an episodic context as more similar than those from different episodic contexts. CA23DG showed the opposite pattern, differentiating between objects encountered in the same episodic context. The complementary characteristics of these subfields explain how we can parse our experiences into cohesive episodes while retaining the specific details that support vivid recollection.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-017-02752-1

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Experimental approach. Participants encoded objects uniquely located within one of two spatial locations (spatial contexts) across a series of 20 videos (episodic contexts). Next, they were scanned while performing an object recognition test which required differentiating old and new objects presented without any contextual information. We used representational similarity analyses (RSA) to examine the similarity of voxel patterns elicited by each recollected object relative to other recollected objects that were studied in the same (or different) spatial and episodic context. This figure is not included under the Creative Commons licence for the article; all rights reserved
Fig. 1 Experimental approach. Participants encoded objects uniquely located within one of two spatial locations (spatial contexts) across a series of 20 videos (episodic contexts). Next, they were scanned while performing an object recognition test which required differentiating old and new objects presented without any contextual information. We used representational similarity analyses (RSA) to examine the similarity of voxel patterns elicited by each recollected object relative to other recollected objects that were studied in the same (or different) spatial and episodic context. This figure is not included under the Creative Commons licence for the article; all rights reservedCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Pattern similarity in CA1 and CA23DG is sensitive to episodic context. Pattern similarity was higher in left CA1 for items studied in the same video (Same Video Same House) than for items in different videos (Different Video Same House). Left CA23DG showed a reversal of this pattern such that pattern similarity was higher for items studied between videos vs. within the same video. Neither CA1 nor CA23DG patterns were sensitive to spatial context similarity alone
Fig. 2 Pattern similarity in CA1 and CA23DG is sensitive to episodic context. Pattern similarity was higher in left CA1 for items studied in the same video (Same Video Same House) than for items in different videos (Different Video Same House). Left CA23DG showed a reversal of this pattern such that pattern similarity was higher for items studied between videos vs. within the same video. Neither CA1 nor CA23DG patterns were sensitive to spatial context similarity aloneCC BY · PubMed Central

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.

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?

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

Show all 70 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bates, D. lme4: Mixed-effects Modeling with R (Springer, Madison, WI, 2010).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dimsdale-Zucker, H. R., Ritchey, M., Ekstrom, A. D., Yonelinas, A. P., & Ranganath, C.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Boston College (US)
Corresponding author
Dimsdale-Zucker, Halle R.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2018-01-18
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
294-294
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2953335281
Cited by
205
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 21
FWCI
12.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1650042)
  • University of California, Davis
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K99MH103401, R00MH103401)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
Keywords
hippocampal subfields, CA1, CA3, episodic memory, spatial memory, recollection, contextual memory, virtual reality navigation, multivariate pattern analysis, human hippocampus
MeSH terms
Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Mental Recall, Space Perception, Young Adult, CA1 Region, Hippocampal, CA3 Region, Hippocampal, 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