Cited by 228Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

The neurobiological foundation of memory retrieval

Open access
Frankland, Paul W., Josselyn, Sheena A., Köhler, Stefan·2019·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

Memory retrieval involves the interaction between external sensory or internally generated cues and stored memory traces (or engrams) in a process termed 'ecphory'. While ecphory has been examined in human cognitive neuroscience research, its neurobiological foundation is less understood. To the extent that ecphory involves 'reawakening' of engrams, leveraging recently developed technologies that can identify and manipulate engrams in rodents provides a fertile avenue for examining retrieval at the level of neuronal ensembles. Here we evaluate emerging neuroscientific research of this type, using cognitive theory as a guiding principle to organize and interpret initial findings. Our Review highlights the critical interaction between engrams and retrieval cues (environmental or artificial) for memory accessibility and retrieval success. These findings also highlight the intimate relationship between the mechanisms important in forming engrams and those important in their recovery, as captured in the cognitive notion of 'encoding specificity'. Finally, we identify several questions that currently remain unanswered.

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/s41593-019-0493-1

Cites

114 of 114 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?

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

Authors
Frankland, P. W., Josselyn, S. A., & Köhler, S.
Affiliations
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
  • Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Frankland, Paul W.
  • Köhler, Stefan
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2019-09-24
Volume
22
Issue
10
Pages
1576-1585
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2976971804
Cited by
228
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 2
FWCI
2.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Gouvernement du Canada | Canadian Institutes of Health Research (FDN388455)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
memory retrieval, memory engrams, retrieval cues, encoding specificity, neuronal ensembles, memory accessibility, memory formation, mice
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Memory, Neurobiology, Mental Recall, Cognitive Science

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