The Cognitive Neuroscience of Human Memory Since H.M

Download The Cognitive Neuroscience of Human Memory Since H.M

Post on 08-Dec-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents

2 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • NE34CH12-Squire ARI 13 May 2011 12:29

    The Cognitive Neuroscienceof Human MemorySince H.M.Larry R. Squire1,2,3,4 and John T. Wixted41Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, San Diego, California 921612Department of Psychiatry, 3Department of Neurosciences, and 4Department ofPsychology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093;email: lsquire@ucsd.edu, jwixted@ucsd.edu

    Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2011. 34:25988

    First published online as a Review in Advance onMarch 29, 2011

    The Annual Review of Neuroscience is online atneuro.annualreviews.org

    This articles doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113720

    Copyright c 2011 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

    0147-006X/11/0721-0259$20.00

    Keywords

    medial temporal lobe, hippocampus, neocortex, anterograde amnesia,retrograde amnesia

    Abstract

    Work with patient H.M., beginning in the 1950s, established key prin-ciples about the organization ofmemory that inspired decades of experi-mental work. SinceH.M., the study of humanmemory and its disordershas continued to yield new insights and to improve understanding ofthe structure and organization of memory. Here we review this workwith emphasis on the neuroanatomy of medial temporal lobe and dien-cephalic structures important for memory, multiple memory systems,visual perception, immediatememory,memory consolidation, the locusof long-term memory storage, the concepts of recollection and famil-iarity, and the question of how differentmedial temporal lobe structuresmay contribute differently to memory functions.

    259

    Ann

    u. R

    ev. N

    euro

    sci.

    2011

    .34:

    259-

    288.

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    from

    ww

    w.an

    nual

    revi

    ews.o

    rgby

    Uni

    vers

    ity o

    f Miss

    ouri

    - Col

    umbi

    a on

    04/

    14/1

    3. F

    or p

    erso

    nal u

    se o

    nly.

  • NE34CH12-Squire ARI 13 May 2011 12:29

    Contents

    INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260ANATOMY OF MEMORY . . . . . . . . . . 261PRINCIPLES OF ORGANIZATION

    SUGGESTED BY H.M.SFINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

    MULTIPLE MEMORY SYSTEMS . . 266VISUAL PERCEPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267IMMEDIATE MEMORY AND

    WORKING MEMORY . . . . . . . . . . . 268REMOTE MEMORY AND

    MEMORY CONSOLIDATION. . . 271MEMORY IN THE NEOCORTEX. . 273

    Achromatopsia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275Prosopagnosia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275Amusia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276Knowledge Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

    RECOLLECTION ANDFAMILIARITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278Recall versus Recognition . . . . . . . . . . 278Remember/Know Procedure . . . . . . . 279Analysis of the Receiver Operating

    Characteristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279Newer (Model-Free) Methods . . . . . . 281

    GROUP STUDIES ANDMULTIPLE METHODS . . . . . . . . . 281

    CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

    INTRODUCTION

    In the earliest systematic writings about humanmemory, it was already appreciated that thestudy of memory impairment can provide valu-able insights into the structure and organiza-tion of normal function (Ribot 1881, Winslow1861). This tradition of research has contin-ued to prove fruitful and has yielded a broadrange of fundamental information about thestructure and organization of memory. Whatis memory? Is it one thing or many? What arethe concepts and categories that guide our cur-rent understanding of how memory works andthat underlie the classication of its disorders?It is sometimes not appreciated that the con-cepts and categories used in current discussions

    of memory are not xed and were not easily es-tablished. Even the question of which cognitiveoperations reect memory and which dependon other faculties has a long history of empiri-cal work and discussion.

    One needs only to sample nineteenth-century writings to recognize how differentlymemory was viewed then and now. Forexample, in his classic treatment of memorydisorders, Ribot (1881) considered amnesiasdue to neurological injury together withamnesias due to psychological trauma. Andhe viewed aphasia and agnosia as disordersof memory, wherein (in aphasia, for example)patients have lost their memory for words ormemory for the movements needed to producewords. Today, aphasia is considered a decitof language, and agnosia a decit of visualperception. Memory is affected but only as partof a more fundamental defect in a specic kindof information processing.

    The notion that the study of brain injury canelucidate the organization of memory was itselfa matter for empirical inquiry. If brain regionswere highly interconnected, and the brainsfunctions distributed and integrated one withanother, then damage to any one area wouldproduce a global impairment, blurred acrossmultiple faculties and affecting all ofmental life.But the fact of the matter is different. The brainis highly specialized and modular, with differ-ent regions dedicated to specic operations. Asa result, localized damage can produce strik-ingly specic effects, including a selective andcircumscribed impairment of memory.

    The idea that functions of the nervous sys-tem can be localized was already well acceptedby the end of the nineteenth century. This lo-calizationist view had its roots in the writingsof Gall (1825) and was supported by the exper-imental work of Broca (1861), Ferrier (1876),Fritsch &Hitzig (1870), and others (see Finger1994). Yet, these ideas centered mainly aroundsensory functions, motor control, and languageand did not usefully address the topic of mem-ory. Then, in the early twentieth century, aninuential program of experimental work in ro-dents investigated directly the localization of

    260 Squire Wixted

    Ann

    u. R

    ev. N

    euro

    sci.

    2011

    .34:

    259-

    288.

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    from

    ww

    w.an

    nual

    revi

    ews.o

    rgby

    Uni

    vers

    ity o

    f Miss

    ouri

    - Col

    umbi

    a on

    04/

    14/1

    3. F

    or p

    erso

    nal u

    se o

    nly.

  • NE34CH12-Squire ARI 13 May 2011 12:29

    memory with the conclusion that memory isdistributed throughout the cortex and that thecontribution tomemory is equivalent across re-gions (Lashley 1929). This idea was stronglychallenged (Hebb 1949, Hunter 1930) by thealternative, and more modern, interpretationthat memory storage is indeed distributed butthat different areas store different features of thewhole. Still, as the midpoint of the twentiethcentury approached, memory functions, whiledistributed, were thought to be well integratedwith perceptual and intellectual functions, andno region of the brain was believed to be dis-proportionately dedicated to memory. All thatwas about to change.

    In 1957, Brenda Milner reported theprofound effect on memory of bilateral medialtemporal lobe resection, carried out to relieveepilepsy in a patient who became known asH.M. (19262008) (Scoville & Milner 1957,Squire 2009) (Figure 1). Remarkably, H.M.exhibited profound forgetfulness but in theabsence of any general intellectual loss orperceptual disorders. He could not form newmemories (anterograde amnesia) and alsocould not access some memories acquiredbefore his surgery (retrograde amnesia). Hisimpairment extended to both verbal and non-verbal material, and it involved informationacquired through all sensory modalities. Thesendings established the fundamental principlethat memory is a distinct cerebral function,separable from other perceptual and cognitiveabilities, and also identied the medial aspectof the temporal lobe as important for memory.The early descriptions of H.M. can be said tohave inaugurated themodern era ofmemory re-search, and the ndings fromH.M. enormouslyinuenced the direction of subsequent work.

    ANATOMY OF MEMORY

    The work with H.M. is sometimes cited incor-rectly as evidence of the importance of the hip-pocampus formemory, but this particular pointcould not of course be established by a large le-sion that included not only the hippocampusbut also the amygdala together with the adja-

    cent parahippocampal gyrus. Which structureswithinH.M.s lesion are important for memorybecame understood only gradually during the1980s following the successful development ofan animal model of human amnesia in the non-human primate (Mishkin 1978). Cumulativestudies in the monkey (Murray 1992, Squire &Zola-Morgan 1991, Zola-Morgan et al. 1994)considerably claried this issue. The impor-tant structures proved to be the hippocam-pus and the adjacent entorhinal, perirhinal,and parahippocampal cortices, which make upmuch of the parahippocampal gyrus (Figure 2).

    One particularly instructive case of humanmemory impairment became available duringthis same time period (Zola-Morgan et al.1986). R.B. developed a moderately severe,enduring impairment following an ischemicepisode in 1978. During the ve years until hisdeath, his memory decit was well documentedwith formal tests. Detailed histological exami-nation of his brain revealed a circumscribed bi-lateral lesion involving the entire CA1 eld ofthe hippocampus. Note that a lesion connedto the CA1 eld must substantially disrupt hip-pocampal function because the CA1 eld is abottleneck in the unidirectional chain of pro-cessing that begins at the dentate gyrus and endsin the subiculum and entorhinal cortex. R.B.was the rst case of memory impairment fol-lowing a lesion limited to the hippocampus thatwas supported by extensive neuropsychologicaltesting as well as neuropathological analysis.

    Thendings fromR.B., considered togetherwith

Recommended

View more >