Cited by 0Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Stimulus-specific recruitment of human amygdala neurons predicts episodic memory encoding success

Open access
Xiao, Jiayang, Daume, Jonathan, Salimpour, Yousef, Kurilenko, Natalia, Mosher, Clayton, Anderson, William S., Valiante, Taufik A., Mamelak, Adam N. +1 more·2026·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

Controlling whether an experience is encoded into long-term memory and thus later remembered is a crucial aspect of memory. Here we examined single-neuron activity in the human brain while participants formed memories for novel visual stimuli and later retrieved them with confidence ratings. Category-selective amygdala neurons exhibited elevated firing during encoding of later remembered items relative to later forgotten items. This effect was predictive of the episodic aspect of the memory, was restricted to the preferred category of each cell, emerged earlier and was stronger in the amygdala compared to the hippocampus, and did not depend on stimulus valence and arousal. Successful memory formation was accompanied by enhanced spike-field coherence between the activity of amygdala category cells and hippocampal field potentials. These findings demonstrate that stimulus-specific recruitment of the amygdala predicts memory formation and suggest category cells in the right amygdala as a target for interventions to treat disorders affecting episodic memory in humans. The study shows that stimulus-specific neurons in the human amygdala determine which experiences become lasting memory, revealing a mechanism that predicts episodic memory formation and may guide future treatments for memory disorders.

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/s41593-026-02493-9

Cites

10 of 10 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

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

Authors
Xiao, J., Daume, J., Salimpour, Y., Kurilenko, N., Mosher, C., Anderson, W. S., Valiante, T. A., Mamelak, A. N., & Rutishauser, U.
Affiliations
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Rutishauser, Ueli
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2026-10-27
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W7223989301
Cited by
0
References
10
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (U01NS117839)
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
amygdala, episodic memory encoding, single-unit activity, hippocampus, spike-field coherence, memory confidence, stimulus valence, memory disorders, human brain

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