Cited by 37Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and Memory

Retrosplenial cortical contributions to anterograde and retrograde memory in the monkey

Open access
Buckley, Mark J., Mitchell, Anna S.·2016·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

Primate retrosplenial cortex (RSC) is important for memory but patient neuropathologies are diffuse so its key contributions to memory remain elusive. This study provides the first causal evidence that RSC in macaque monkeys is crucial for postoperative retention of preoperatively and postoperatively acquired memories. Preoperatively, monkeys learned 300 object-in-place scene discriminations across sessions. After RSC removal, one-trial postoperative retention tests revealed significant retrograde memory loss for these 300 discriminations relative to unoperated control monkeys. Less robust evidence was found for a deficit in anterograde memory (new postoperative learning) after RSC lesions as new learning to criterion measures failed to reveal any significant learning impairment. However, after achieving ≥90% learning criterion for the postoperatively presented novel 100 object-in-place scene discriminations, short-term retention (i.e., measured after 24 h delay) of this well-learnt set was impaired in the RSC monkeys relative to controls. A further experiment assessed rapid "within" session acquisition of novel object-in-place scene discriminations, again confirming that new learning per se was unimpaired by bilateral RSC removal. Primate RSC contributes critically to memory by supporting normal retention of information, even when this information does not involve an autobiographical component.

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 · 10.1093/cercor/bhw054

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Aspiration lesions centred on retrosplenial cortex disrupted the retention of scene discriminations.

    “but did disrupt the retention of these discriminations (Buckley and Mitchell, 2016).”

    From The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction (2018) · cites this paper as Buckley and Mitchell, 2016

  • Aspiration lesions centred on retrosplenial cortex spared the acquisition of scene discriminations.

    “Aspiration lesions centred on retrosplenial cortex also spared the acquisition of scene discriminations (Buckley and Mitchell, 2016; see also Parker and Gaffan, 1997)”

    From The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction (2018) · cites this paper as Buckley and Mitchell, 2016

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

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Aggleton JP 2012 Multiple anatomical systems embedded within the primate medial temporal lobe: implications for hippocampal function. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 36: 1579– 1596. 21964564
  2. Aggleton JP, Saunders RC, Wright NF, Vann SD 2014 The origin of projections from the posterior cingulate and retrosplenial cortices to the anterior, medial dorsal and laterodorsal thalamic nuclei of macaque monkeys. Eur J Neurosci. 39: 107– 123. 24134130 PMC4112842
  3. Aggleton JP, Vann SD 2004 Testing the importance of the retrosplenial navigation system: lesion size but not strain matters: a reply to Harker and Whishaw. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 28: 525– 531. 15465139
  4. Auger SD, Maguire EA 2013 Assessing the mechanism of response in the retrosplenial cortex of good and poor navigators. Cortex. 49: 2904– 2913. 24012136 PMC3878422
  5. Auger SD, Mullally SL, Maguire EA 2012 Retrosplenial cortex codes for permanent landmarks. PLoS One. 7: e43620. 22912894 PMC3422332
  6. Baxter MG, Gaffan D, Kyriazis DA, Mitchell AS 2008 Dorsolateral prefrontal lesions do not impair tests of scene learning and decision-making that require frontal-temporal interaction. Eur J Neurosci. 28: 491– 499. 18702721 PMC2522287
  7. Bright P, Buckman J, Fradera A, Yoshimasu H, Colchester AC, Kopelman MD 2006 Retrograde amnesia in patients with hippocampal, medial temporal, temporal lobe, or frontal pathology. Learn Mem. 13: 545– 557. 17015852 PMC1783611
  8. Browning PG, Chakraborty S, Mitchell AS 2015 Evidence for mediodorsal thalamus and prefrontal cortex interactions during Cognition in Macaques. Cereb Cortex. 25: 4519– 4534. 25979086 PMC4816796
  9. Buckley MJ, Charles DP, Browning PG, Gaffan D 2004 Learning and retrieval of concurrently presented spatial discrimination tasks: role of the fornix. Behav Neurosci. 118: 138– 149. 14979790
  10. Buckley MJ, Gaffan D 1998 Learning and transfer of object-reward associations and the role of the perirhinal cortex. Behav Neurosci. 112: 15– 23. 9517812
  11. Buckley MJ, Wilson CR, Gaffan D 2008 Fornix transection impairs visuospatial memory acquisition more than retrieval. Behav Neurosci. 122: 44– 53. 18298248
  12. Buckner RL, Andrews-Hanna JR, Schacter DL 2008 The brain's default network: anatomy, function, and relevance to disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1124: 1– 38. 18400922
  13. Burgess N, Maguire EA, Spiers HJ, O'Keefe J 2001 A temporoparietal and prefrontal network for retrieving the spatial context of lifelike events. Neuroimage. 14: 439– 453. 11467917
  14. Charles DP, Browning PG, Gaffan D 2004a Entorhinal cortex contributes to object-in-place scene memory. Eur J Neurosci. 20: 3157– 3164. 15579170
  15. Charles DP, Gaffan D, Buckley MJ 2004b Impaired recency judgments and intact novelty judgments after fornix transection in monkeys. J Neurosci. 24: 2037– 2044. 14985446 PMC6730396
  16. Cooper BG, Mizumori SJ 1999 Retrosplenial cortex inactivation selectively impairs navigation in darkness. Neuroreport. 10: 625– 630. 10208601
  17. Dean P, Weiskrantz L 1974 Loss of preoperative habits in Rhesus monkeys with inferotemporal lesions: recognition failure or relearning deficit? Neuropsychologia 12: 299– 311. 4472470
  18. Epstein RA 2008 Parahippocampal and retrosplenial contributions to human spatial navigation. Trends Cogn Sci. 12: 388– 396. 18760955 PMC2858632
  19. Gaffan D 1993a Additive effects of forgetting and fornix transection in the temporal gradient of retrograde-amnesia. Neuropsychologia. 31: 1055– 1066. 8290022
  20. Gaffan D 2005 Neuroscience. Widespread cortical networks underlie memory and attention. Science. 309: 2172– 2173. 16195447
  21. Gaffan D 1993b Normal forgetting, impaired acquisition in memory for complex naturalistic scenes by Fornix-Transected Monkeys. Neuropsychologia. 31: 403– 406. 8502375
  22. Gaffan D 1994 Scene-specific memory for objects: a model of episodic memory impairment in monkeys with fornix transection. J Cog Neurosci. 6: 305– 320. 23961727
  23. Gaffan D, Easton A, Parker A 2002 Interaction of inferior temporal cortex with frontal cortex and basal forebrain: double dissociation in strategy implementation and associative learning. J Neurosci. 22: 7288– 7296. 12177224 PMC6757896
  24. Gaffan D, Parker A, Easton A 2001 Dense amnesia in the monkey after transection of fornix, amygdala and anterior temporal stem. Neuropsychologia. 39: 51– 70. 11115655
  25. Haijima A, Ichitani Y 2008 Anterograde and retrograde amnesia of place discrimination in retrosplenial cortex and hippocampal lesioned rats. Learn Mem. 15: 477– 482. 18626091
  26. Haijima A, Ichitani Y 2012 Dissociable anterograde amnesic effects of retrosplenial cortex and hippocampal lesions on spontaneous object recognition memory in rats. Hippocampus. 22: 1868– 1875. 22467347
  27. Hampton RR, Murray EA 2002 Learning of discriminations is impaired, but generalization to altered views is intact, in monkeys (Macaca mulatta) with perirhinal cortex removal. Behav Neurosci. 116: 363– 377. 12049317
  28. Harker KT, Whishaw IQ 2004 A reaffirmation of the retrosplenial contribution to rodent navigation: reviewing the influences of lesion, strain, and task. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 28: 485– 496. 15465136
  29. Hindley EL, Nelson AJ, Aggleton JP, Vann SD 2014a Dysgranular retrosplenial cortex lesions in rats disrupt cross-modal object recognition. Learn Mem. 21: 171– 179. 24554671 PMC3929849
  30. Hindley EL, Nelson AJ, Aggleton JP, Vann SD 2014b The rat retrosplenial cortex is required when visual cues are used flexibly to determine location. Behav Brain Res. 263: 98– 107. 24486256 PMC3969719
  31. Hornberger M, Mohamed A, Miller L, Watson J, Thayer Z, Hodges JR 2010 Focal retrograde amnesia: Extending the clinical syndrome of transient epileptic amnesia. J Clin Neurosci. 17: 1319– 1321. 20598890
  32. Iaria G, Chen JK, Guariglia C, Ptito A, Petrides M 2007 Retrosplenial and hippocampal brain regions in human navigation: complementary functional contributions to the formation and use of cognitive maps. Eur J Neurosci. 25: 890– 899. 17298595
  33. Jones B, Mishkin M 1972 Limbic lesions and the problem of stimulus—reinforcement associations. Exp Neurol. 36: 362– 377. 4626489
  34. Kobayashi Y, Amaral DG 2000 Macaque monkey retrosplenial cortex: I. three-dimensional and cytoarchitectonic organization. J Comp Neurol. 426: 339– 365. 10992242
  35. Kobayashi Y, Amaral DG 2003 Macaque monkey retrosplenial cortex: II. Cortical afferents. J Comp Neurol. 466: 48– 79. 14515240
  36. Kobayashi Y, Amaral DG 2007 Macaque monkey retrosplenial cortex: III. Cortical efferents. J Comp Neurol. 502: 810– 833. 17436282
  37. Kopelman MD 2000 Focal retrograde amnesia and the attribution of causality: an exceptionally critical view. Cogn Neuropsychol. 17: 585– 621. 20945196
  38. Maddock RJ 1999 The retrosplenial cortex and emotion: new insights from functional neuroimaging of the human brain. Trends Neurosci. 22: 310– 316. 10370255
  39. Maguire EA 2001 The retrosplenial contribution to human navigation: a review of lesion and neuroimaging findings. Scand J Psychol. 42: 225– 238. 11501737
  40. Minoshima S, Giordani B, Berent S, Frey KA, Foster NL, Kuhl DE 1997 Metabolic reduction in the posterior cingulate cortex in very early Alzheimer's disease. Ann Neurol. 42: 85– 94. 9225689
  41. Mitchell AS, Baxter MG, Gaffan D 2007 Dissociable performance on scene learning and strategy implementation after lesions to magnocellular mediodorsal thalamic nucleus. J Neurosci. 27: 11888– 11895. 17978029 PMC2241732
  42. Mitchell AS, Browning PG, Wilson CR, Baxter MG, Gaffan D 2008 Dissociable roles for cortical and subcortical structures in memory retrieval and acquisition. J Neurosci. 28: 8387– 8396. 18716197 PMC6671048
  43. Mitchell AS, Gaffan D 2008 The magnocellular mediodorsal thalamus is necessary for memory acquisition, but not retrieval. J Neurosci. 28: 258– 263. 18171943 PMC6671139
  44. Mullally SL, Hassabis D, Maguire EA 2012 Scene construction in amnesia: an FMRI study. J Neurosci. 32: 5646– 5653. 22514326 PMC3330271
  45. Murray EA, Wise SP 2010 What, if anything, can monkeys tell us about human amnesia when they can't say anything at all? Neuropsychologia. 48: 2385– 2405. 20097215 PMC2888763
  46. Nelson AJ, Hindley EL, Haddon JE, Vann SD, Aggleton JP 2014 A novel role for the rat retrosplenial cortex in cognitive control. Learn Mem. 21: 90– 97. 24434870 PMC3895227
  47. Parker A, Gaffan D 1997a The effect of anterior thalamic and cingulate cortex lesions on object-in-place memory in monkeys. Neuropsychologia. 35: 1093– 1102. 9256374
  48. Parker A, Gaffan D 1997b Mamillary body lesions in monkeys impair object-in-place memory: functional unity of the fornix-mamillary system. J Cog Neurosci. 9: 512– 521. 23968214
  49. Pothuizen HH, Aggleton JP, Vann SD 2008 Do rats with retrosplenial cortex lesions lack direction? Eur J Neurosci. 28: 2486– 2498. 19032585
  50. Rudge P, Warrington EK 1991 Selective impairment of memory and visual perception in splenial tumours. Brain. 114: 349– 360. 2004246
  51. Smith CN, Frascino JC, Hopkins RO, Squire LR 2013 The nature of anterograde and retrograde memory impairment after damage to the medial temporal lobe. Neuropsychologia. 51: 2709– 2714. 24041667 PMC3837701
  52. Spiers HJ, Maguire EA 2006 Thoughts, behaviour, and brain dynamics during navigation in the real world. Neuroimage. 31: 1826– 1840. 16584892
  53. Spreng RN, Mar RA, Kim AS 2009 The common neural basis of autobiographical memory, prospection, navigation, theory of mind, and the default mode: a quantitative meta-analysis. J Cogn Neurosci. 21: 489– 510. 18510452
  54. Takahashi N, Kawamura M, Shiota J, Kasahata N, Hirayama K 1997 Pure topographic disorientation due to right retrosplenial lesion. Neurology. 49: 464– 469. 9270578
  55. Taube JS 2007 The head direction signal: origins and sensory-motor integration. Annu Rev Neurosci. 30: 181– 207. 17341158
  56. Thornton JA, Rothblat LA, Murray EA 1997 Rhinal cortex removal produces amnesia for preoperatively learned discrimination problems but fails to disrupt postoperative acquisition and retention in rhesus monkeys. J Neurosci. 17: 8536– 8549. 9334426 PMC6573729
  57. Valenstein E, Bowers D, Verfaellie M, Heilman KM, Day A, Watson RT 1987 Retrosplenial amnesia. Brain. 110: 1631– 1646. 3427404
  58. Vann SD, Aggleton JP 2002 Extensive cytotoxic lesions of the rat retrosplenial cortex reveal consistent deficits on tasks that tax allocentric spatial memory. Behav Neurosci. 116: 85– 94. 11895186
  59. Vann SD, Aggleton JP 2004 Testing the importance of the retrosplenial guidance system: effects of different sized retrosplenial cortex lesions on heading direction and spatial working memory. Behav Brain Res. 155: 97– 108. 15325783
  60. Vann SD, Kristina Wilton LA, Muir JL, Aggleton JP 2003 Testing the importance of the caudal retrosplenial cortex for spatial memory in rats. Behav Brain Res. 140: 107– 118. 12644284
  61. Vogt BA, Pandya DN, Rosene DL 1987 Cingulate cortex of the rhesus monkey: I. Cytoarchitecture and thalamic afferents. J Comp Neurol. 262: 256– 270. 3624554

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buckley, M. J., & Mitchell, A. S.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Buckley, Mark J.
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2016-03-05
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
2905-2918
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2295435618
Cited by
37
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
UK Medical Research Council Career Development Award (G0800329)
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 › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
retrosplenial cortex, retrograde amnesia, anterograde amnesia, memory retention, lesion studies, macaque, short-term memory, spatial memory, postoperative memory
MeSH terms
Animals, Discrimination, Psychological, Discrimination Learning, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Macaca mulatta, Male, Memory, Neuropsychological Tests, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Time Factors

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