Memory contextualization: The role of prefrontal cortex in functional integration across item and context representational regions
Open accessAbstract
Memory recall is facilitated when retrieval occurs in the original encoding context. This context dependency effect likely results from the automatic binding of central elements of an experience with contextual features (i.e., memory “contextualization”) during encoding. However, despite a vast body of research investigating the neural correlates of explicit associative memory, the neural interactions during encoding that predict implicit context-dependent memory remain unknown. Twenty-six participants underwent fMRI during encoding of salient stimuli (faces), which were overlaid onto unique background images (contexts). To index subsequent context-dependent memory, face recognition was tested either in intact or rearranged contexts, after scanning. Enhanced face recognition in intact relative to rearranged contexts evidenced successful memory contextualization. Overall subsequent memory effects (brain activity predicting whether items were later remembered vs. forgotten) were found in the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) and right amygdala. Effective connectivity analyses showed that stronger context-dependent memory was associated with stronger coupling of the left IFG with face- and place-responsive areas, both within and between participants. Our findings indicate an important role for the IFG in integrating information across widespread regions involved in the representation of salient items and contextual features.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Findings regarding memory contextualization indicate that intrusive memory development is associated with poor perceptual integration and increased negative conceptual processing.
“findings regarding memory contextualization seem to indicate that intrusive memory development is associated with poor perceptual integration, and increased (negative) conceptual processing”
From Intrusive memories of trauma: A target for research bridging cognitive science and its clinical application (2019) · cites this paper as Zhang, van Ast, Klumpers, Roelofs, & Hermans, 2018
Cites
Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function
Arnsten, A. F. T. (2009) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2648 · Cited by 3,299 · see citing works
Functional organization of the hippocampal longitudinal axis
Strange, B. A., Witter, M. P., Lein, E. S., & Moser, E. I. (2014) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3785 · Cited by 1,738 · see citing works
Long-axis specialization of the human hippocampus
Poppenk, J., Evensmoen, H. R., Moscovitch, M., & Nadel, L. (2013) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.005 · Cited by 1,100 · see citing works
Costafreda, S. G., Brammer, M. J., David, A. S., & Fu, C. H. Y. (2008) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.10.012 · Cited by 772 · see citing works
Diamond, D. M., Campbell, A. M., Park, C. R., Halonen, J., & Zoladz, P. R. (2007) · Neural Plasticity · doi:10.1155/2007/60803 · Cited by 762 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Our data, however, indicate that this model may place too much emphasis on hippocampal instead of PFC dysfunction as central factor (Diamond, Campbell, Park, Halonen, & Zoladz, 2007).”
Stress weakens prefrontal networks: molecular insults to higher cognition
Arnsten, A. F. T. (2015) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4087 · Cited by 752 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The brain structures we identified as being involved in memory contextualization are especially sensitive to stress-related neuromodulatory changes (Arnsten, 2009, 2015; Hermans, Henckens, mnemonic integration, resulting in decontextualization, fragmentation, and generalization of memories.”
Hippocampal damage and exploratory preferences in rats: memory for objects, places, and contexts
Mumby, D. G., Gaskin, S., Glenn, M. J., Schramek, T. E., & Lehmann, H. (2002) · Learning & Memory · doi:10.1101/lm.41302 · Cited by 714 · see citing works
The functional neuroanatomy of PTSD: a critical review
Liberzon, I., & Sripada, C. S. (2007) · Progress in Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0079-6123(07)67011-3 · Cited by 594 · see citing works
Towards a functional organization of episodic memory in the medial temporal lobe
Eichenbaum, H., Sauvage, M., Fortin, N., Komorowski, R., & Lipton, P. (2012) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.07.006 · Cited by 354 · see citing works
How the hippocampus preserves order: the role of prediction and context
Davachi, L., & DuBrow, S. (2015) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.004 · Cited by 328 · see citing works
Sullivan Giovanello, K., Schnyer, D. M., & Verfaellie, M. (2004) · Hippocampus · doi:10.1002/hipo.10182 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Meyer, T., Smeets, T., Giesbrecht, T., Quaedflieg, C. W. E. M., Girardelli, M. M., Mackay, G. R. N., & Merckelbach, H. (2013) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-012-0123-9 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Meyer, T., Krans, J., van Ast, V., & Smeets, T. (2017) · Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.07.010 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Iyadurai, L., Visser, R. M., Lau-Zhu, A., Porcheret, K., Horsch, A., Holmes, E. A., & James, E. L. (2019) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2018.08.005 · Cited by 255 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhang, W., van Ast, V. A., Klumpers, F., Roelofs, K., & Hermans, E. J.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- University of Amsterdam
- Danders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour
- Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2018-04
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 579-593
- ISSN
- 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8898
- OpenAlex
- W2773392223
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 1.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Radboud Universiteit
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (453-12-001, 451-16-021)
- H2020 European Research Council (682591)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- contextual memory, prefrontal cortex, inferior frontal gyrus, amygdala, face recognition (cognition), encoding context, subsequent memory, effective connectivity, associative memory, functional integration
- MeSH terms
- Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Prefrontal Cortex, Young Adult
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
