Locus Coeruleus Activity Strengthens Prioritized Memories Under Arousal
Open accessAbstract
Recent models posit that bursts of locus ceruleus (LC) activity amplify neural gain such that limited attention and encoding resources focus even more on prioritized mental representations under arousal. Here, we tested this hypothesis in human males and females using fMRI, neuromelanin MRI, and pupil dilation, a biomarker of arousal and LC activity. During scanning, participants performed a monetary incentive encoding task in which threat of punishment motivated them to prioritize encoding of scene images over superimposed objects. Threat of punishment elicited arousal and selectively enhanced memory for goal-relevant scenes. Furthermore, trial-level pupil dilations predicted better scene memory under threat, but were not related to object memory outcomes. fMRI analyses revealed that greater threat-evoked pupil dilations were positively associated with greater scene encoding activity in LC and parahippocampal cortex, a region specialized to process scene information. Across participants, this pattern of LC engagement for goal-relevant encoding was correlated with neuromelanin signal intensity, providing the first evidence that LC structure relates to its activation pattern during cognitive processing. Threat also reduced dynamic functional connectivity between high-priority (parahippocampal place area) and lower-priority (lateral occipital cortex) category-selective visual cortex in ways that predicted increased memory selectivity. Together, these findings support the idea that, under arousal, LC activity selectively strengthens prioritized memory representations by modulating local and functional network-level patterns of information processing. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Adaptive behavior relies on the ability to select and store important information amid distraction. Prioritizing encoding of task-relevant inputs is especially critical in threatening or arousing situations, when forming these memories is essential for avoiding danger in the future. However, little is known about the arousal mechanisms that support such memory selectivity. Using fMRI, neuromelanin MRI, and pupil measures, we demonstrate that locus ceruleus (LC) activity amplifies neural gain such that limited encoding resources focus even more on prioritized mental representations under arousal. For the first time, we also show that LC structure relates to its involvement in threat-related encoding processes. These results shed new light on the brain mechanisms by which we process important information when it is most needed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Release of norepinephrine by the locus coeruleus influences arousal levels and promotes memory formation in the hippocampus.
“Release of norepinephrine by the locus coeruleus influences arousal levels and has been shown to prioritize processing of goal-relevant information and to promote memory formation in the hippocampus (Clewett et al., 2018; Mather et al., 2016).”
From Predicting as a learning strategy (2021) · cites this paper as Clewett et al., 2018
The Discussion reports that arousal engages the locus coeruleus to selectively process and store prioritized information. The Results report threat-related modulation of successful scene-encoding activity in the left posterior hippocampus. However, the study measured pupil dilation and fMRI activity, not norepinephrine release, so it does not directly show that such release influences arousal levels or promotes hippocampal memory formation. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 103 · Cited by 152
- Authors
- Clewett, D. V., Huang, R., Velasco, R., Lee, T.-H., & Mather, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Society for Neuroscience
- Published
- 2018-01-04
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1558-1574
- ISSN
- 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-2401
- PMC
- PMC5815354
- OpenAlex
- W2782386660
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 103
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11
- FWCI
- 10.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute on Aging (R01AG025340)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- locus coeruleus, arousal, memory prioritization, scene memory, object memory, pupil dilation, neuromelanin-sensitive MRI, parahippocampal place area, lateral occipital cortex, functional connectivity, neural gain, sex differences
- MeSH terms
- Arousal, Female, Humans, Individuality, Locus Coeruleus, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Melanins, Memory, Motivation, Nerve Net, Psychomotor Performance, Punishment, Pupil, Visual Cortex, Parahippocampal Gyrus, Young Adult, Neuroimaging
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