Cited by 105Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsCognitive Functions and Memory

Neural context reinstatement predicts memory misattribution

Open access
Gershman, Samuel J., Schapiro, Anna C., Hupbach, Almut, Norman, Kenneth A.·2013·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

What causes new information to be mistakenly attributed to an old experience? Some theories predict that reinstating the context of a prior experience allows new information to be bound to that context, leading to source memory confusion. To examine this prediction, we had human participants study two lists of items (visual objects) on separate days while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging. List 1 items were accompanied by a stream of scene images during the intertrial interval, but list 2 items were not. As in prior work by Hupbach et al. (2009), we observed an asymmetric pattern of misattributions on a subsequent source memory test: participants showed a strong tendency to misattribute list 2 items to list 1 but not vice versa. We hypothesized that these memory errors were due to participants reinstating the list 1 context during list 2. To test this hypothesis, we used a pattern classifier to measure scene-related neural activity during list 2 study. Because scenes were visually present during list 1 but not list 2, scene-related activity during list 2 study can be used as a time-varying neural indicator of how much participants were reinstating the list 1 context during list 2 study. In keeping with our hypothesis, we found that prestimulus scene activation during the study of list 2 items was significantly higher for items subsequently misattributed to list 1 than for items subsequently correctly attributed to list 2. We conclude by discussing how these findings relate to theories of memory reconsolidation.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.0096-13.2013

Cites

24 of 24 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?

  • Adults' generalization relied on remembering specific item-context representations.

    “Adults’ generalization relied on remembering specific item-context representations, consistent with the notion that rapid generalization relies on retrieving specific instances 7,8, and that there was no generalization-specificity trade off 28,29”
  • One way that reactivation may support memory updating is via contextual reinstatement, by linking novel information that occurs during retrieval with the reinstated context of the reactivated memory.

    “One way that reactivation may support memory updating is via contextual reinstatement, by linking novel information that occurs during retrieval with the reinstated context of the reactivated memory (47, 49).”
  • Contextual reinstatement of scene-related activity in posterior parahippocampal cortex underlies subsequent misattributions in memory.

    “and contextual reinstatement of scene-related activity in the posterior parahippocampal cortex underlies subsequent misattributions in memory (49).”
  • There is conflicting evidence regarding the nature of awake reactivation, with some studies showing that reactivation enhances or even protects memory from new information and other studies indicating that reactivation incorporates new information into memory.

    “However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the nature of awake reactivation, with some studies showing that reactivation enhances or even protects memory from new information (54, 64, 65) and other studies indicating that reactivation incorporates new information into memory (49, 65–67).”

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
Gershman, S. J., Schapiro, A. C., Hupbach, A., & Norman, K. A.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Lehigh University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2013-05-15
Volume
33
Issue
20
Pages
8590-8595
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2062302407
Cited by
105
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2
FWCI
3.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH069456, T32MH065214)
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
context reinstatement, scene memory, memory reconsolidation, pattern classification, visual object memory
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen, Photic Stimulation, Predictive Value of Tests, Time Factors, Multivariate Analysis, 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