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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 17 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.4549-07.2007

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

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

Show all 24 claims

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.

Citations

Cites

  • A default mode of brain function

    Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G. L. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.98.2.676 · Cited by 12,190 · cited 4×

    “…2005), episodic future thinking (Atance and O’Neill, 2001; Addis et al., 2007; Schacter and Addis, 2007; Szpunar et al., 2007), the default mode (Raichle et al., 2001) and daydreaming (Mason et al., 2007), leading to suggestions that it performs a general function (Buckner and Carroll, 2007;…”
    BackgroundInfluential
  • Untitled work

    (1978) · UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) · Cited by 8,010

  • Episodic memory: from mind to brain

    Tulving, E. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135114 · Cited by 4,950 · cited 11×

    “…theory of mind (Kumaran and Maguire, 2005; Amodio and Frith, 2006) and episodic future thinking (Addis et al., 2007) suggesting that the amPFC and PCC might be supporting pro- cesses related to the self (Conway and Pleydell-Pearce, 2000) and mental time travel (Wheeler et al., 1997; Tulving, 2002).”
    BackgroundMethodInfluential
  • The construction of autobiographical memories in the self-memory system

    Conway, M. A., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2000) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.107.2.261 · Cited by 4,089 · cited 7×

    “…a purely created imagined experience does not have the same reliance or effect on the imaginer’s self-schema compared with a real episodic memory (Conway and Pleydell-Pearce, 2000; Gallagher, 2000) although both likely involve the adoption of an egocentric viewpoint (Burgess, 2006) on the part…”
    BackgroundMethodInfluential
  • Meeting of minds: the medial frontal cortex and social cognition

    Amodio, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (2006) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1884 · Cited by 3,782 · cited 2×

    “…bears a striking resemblance to networks found to support self-reflection (Johnson et al., 2002), theory of mind (Kumaran and Maguire, 2005; Amodio and Frith, 2006) and episodic future thinking (Addis et al., 2007) suggesting that the amPFC and PCC might be supporting pro- cesses related…”
    Background
  • Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science.

    Gallagher, S. (2000) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01417-5 · Cited by 2,881 · cited 4×

    “Moreover, by using rich imaginary memories as a well matched comparison task we were able to isolate processes specific to episodic memory, such as the use of self-schema (Conway and Pleydell-Pearce, 2000; Gallagher, 2000), a sense of familiarity and mental time travel (Tulving, 2002).”
    BackgroundMethodInfluential
  • Wandering minds: the default network and stimulus-independent thought

    Mason, M. F., Norton, M. I., Van Horn, J. D., Wegner, D. M., Grafton, S. T., & Macrae, C. N. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1131295 · Cited by 2,792 · cited 4×

    “, 2001), and perhaps even daydreaming (Mason et al., 2007).”
    BackgroundInfluential
  • Self-projection and the brain

    Buckner, R. L., & Carroll, D. C. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.004 · Cited by 2,691

  • The human hippocampus and spatial and episodic memory

    Burgess, N., Maguire, E. A., & O'Keefe, J. (2002) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00830-9 · Cited by 2,401 · cited 3×

    “…network (also replicated in this study with the RM RO contrast) has also been activated in a variety of other circumstances including navigation (Burgess et al., 2002; Hartley et al., 2003; Spiers and Maguire, 2006), spatial tasks (Maguire et al., 2003; Kumaran and Maguire, 2005), episodic…”
    BackgroundMethodSelf-citation
  • Remembering the past to imagine the future: the prospective brain

    Schacter, D. L., Addis, D. R., & Buckner, R. L. (2007) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2213 · Cited by 2,394 · cited 1×

    “…a key component of episodic memory recall lends additional support to constructive theories of episodic memory (Bartlett, 1932; Schacter et al., 1998) and the recently proposed constructive episodic simulation function of the episodic memory system (Schacter and Addis, 2007; Schacter et al., 2007).”
    Background

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 751

Metadata

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-25 (prompt extract-v2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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