Cited by 751Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsCognitive Functions and Memory

Using Imagination to Understand the Neural Basis of Episodic Memory

Open access
Hassabis, Demis, Kumaran, Dharshan, Maguire, Eleanor A.·2007·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Functional MRI (fMRI) studies investigating the neural basis of episodic memory recall, and the related task of thinking about plausible personal future events, have revealed a consistent network of associated brain regions. Surprisingly little, however, is understood about the contributions individual brain areas make to the overall recollective experience. To examine this, we used a novel fMRI paradigm in which subjects had to imagine fictitious experiences. In contrast to future thinking, this results in experiences that are not explicitly temporal in nature or as reliant on self-processing. By using previously imagined fictitious experiences as a comparison for episodic memories, we identified the neural basis of a key process engaged in common, namely scene construction, involving the generation, maintenance and visualization of complex spatial contexts. This was associated with activations in a distributed network, including hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, and retrosplenial cortex. Importantly, we disambiguated these common effects from episodic memory-specific responses in anterior medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex and precuneus. These latter regions may support self-schema and familiarity processes, and contribute to the brain's ability to distinguish real from imaginary memories. We conclude that scene construction constitutes a common process underlying episodic memory and imagination of fictitious experiences, and suggest it may partially account for the similar brain networks implicated in navigation, episodic future thinking, and the default mode. We suggest that additional brain regions are co-opted into this core network in a task-specific manner to support functions such as episodic memory that may have additional requirements.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.4549-07.2007

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

4 of 17 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Background

    The paper says episodic memory can be divided into component processes such as subjective time, self-processing, imagery, semantic retrieval, multimodal detail, and familiarity.

    “Thus episodic memory recall can be conceptually divided into a number of component processes including a sense of subjective time (Tulving, 2002), self-processing (Conway and Pleydell-Pearce, 2000), visual imagery (Rubin et al., 2003), narrative structure (Rubin et al., 2003), retrieval of semantic information (Wheeler et al., 1997) and multi-modal details (Wheeler et al., 2000; Gottfried et al., 2004), and feelings of familiarity (Wagner et al., 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Tulving, 2002 source
    • cites Conway and Pleydell-Pearce, 2000 source
    • cites Rubin et al., 2003 source
  • Background

    The introduction notes that prior fMRI studies of episodic recall and future thinking have found a consistent distributed set of brain regions.

    “have revealed a consistent and distributed network of associated brain regions,”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Maguire, 2001 source
    • cites Svoboda et al., 2006 source

      Section 3.1 identifies a consistent, distributed network across autobiographical-memory imaging studies. Section 3.4 reports overlap in two regions for past and future thought, but cites only one imaging study directly comparing them; it does not establish a consistent distributed network across studies of both episodic recall and future thinking. The indexed copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Cabeza and St Jacques, 2007 source
  • Finding

    The recall of real memories activated the classic episodic memory network relative to recalled objects.

    “we replicated the well-established episodic memory retrieval network consistently activated in studies of autobiographical memory”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Maguire, 2001 source
    • cites Rugg et al., 2002 source

      The Abstract (page unavailable) reports that successful episodic recollection is associated with lateral parietal activation and more variable prefrontal activation. It does not establish a consistently activated network in autobiographical-memory studies or compare recall of real memories with recall of objects; the available text points to a PDF for the full article. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Svoboda et al., 2006 source

      The Introduction says the meta-analysis identifies shared patterns of brain activation during autobiographical remembering, supporting the citing sentence’s reference to an established retrieval network. The Results and discussion (section 3.1) also describes an autobiographical-memory network. Our copy does not establish the claim’s more specific comparison of real-memory recall with recalled objects. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Finding

    The paper claims that anterior medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, and precuneus show responses specific to episodic memory.

    “Importantly, we disambiguated these common effects from episodic memory-specific responses in anterior medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex and precuneus.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding

    It suggests that those episodic-memory-specific regions may support self-schema and familiarity processes.

    “These latter regions may support self-schema and familiarity processes,”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(20) = 13.52reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = 13.52, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = 13.6reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = 13.60, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = 11.03reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = 11.03, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = -4.89reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = −4.89, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = 4.36reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = 4.36, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = 4.41reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = 4.41, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = 2.88reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .009

    “t(20) = 2.88, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(20) = -4.77reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = −4.77, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = -6.67reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = −6.67, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = 5.51reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = 5.51, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = 4.96reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = 4.96, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = 6.17reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = 6.17, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = 17.85reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = 17.85, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = 11.18reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = 11.18, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = 2.42reported p < .03 · recomputed p = .025

    “t(20) = 2.42, p < .03”

  • Consistentt(20) = 12.99reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = 12.99, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = 8.67reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = 8.67, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = -0.89reported p = .39 · recomputed p = .384

    “t(20) = −0.89, p = .39”

  • Consistentt(20) = 0.51reported p = .62 · recomputed p = .616

    “t(20) = 0.51, p = .62”

  • Consistentt(20) = -1.97reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .063

    “t(20) = −1.97, p = .06”

  • Consistentt(20) = -1reported p = .33 · recomputed p = .329

    “t(20) = −1.00, p = .33”

  • Consistentt(20) = -0.47reported p = .64 · recomputed p = .643

    “t(20) = −0.47, p = .64”

  • Consistentt(20) = 1.75reported p = .1 · recomputed p = .095

    “t(20) = 1.75, p = .10”

  • Consistentt(20) = 3.86reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = 3.86, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = 4.26reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(20) = 4.26, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(20) = 1.09reported p = .29 · recomputed p = .289

    “t(20) = 1.09, p = .29”

  • Consistentt(20) = -0.69reported p = .5 · recomputed p = .498

    “t(20) = −0.69, p = .50”

  • Consistentt(20) = -0.59reported p = .56 · recomputed p = .562

    “t(20) = −0.59, p = .56”

  • Consistentt(20) = 0.26reported p = .8 · recomputed p = .798

    “t(20) = 0.26, p = .80”

  • Consistentt(20) = -0.3reported p = .77 · recomputed p = .767

    “t(20) = −0.30, p = .77”

30 of 30

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bartlett FC (1932) Remembering (Cambridge UP, Cambridge).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hassabis, D., Kumaran, D., & Maguire, E. A.
Affiliations
Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
Hassabis, Demis
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2007-12-26
Volume
27
Issue
52
Pages
14365-14374
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1982298223
Cited by
744
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 55
FWCI
15.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (071173)
  • Brain Research Trust
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
episodic memory, imagination, scene construction, hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, retrosplenial cortex, anterior medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, precuneus, episodic future thinking, default mode network, self-processing
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memory, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen

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.

Claims read (extract-v2) on 2026-09-25.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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