Consolidation-dependent behavioral integration of sequences related to mPFC neural overlap and hippocampal-cortical connectivity

  1. Alexa Tompary
  2. Lila Davachi

  • Curated by eLife

    eLife logo

    eLife assessment

    This important study investigates how memory representations are transformed over time (24h period). The work advances our understanding of the neural processes supporting the behavioral integration of memories for distinct events that are never experienced together in time but are linked by shared predictive cues. Evidence supporting the claims is solid, and reporting of additional comparisons would have strengthened the study.

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Systems consolidation theories propose two mechanisms that enable the behavioral integration of related memories: coordinated reactivation between hippocampus and cortex, and the emergence of cortical traces that reflect overlap across memories. However, there is limited empirical evidence that links these mechanisms to the emergence of behavioral integration over time. In two experiments, participants implicitly encoded sequences of objects with overlapping structure. Assessment of behavioral integration showed that response times during a recognition task reflected behavioral priming between objects that never occurred together in time but belonged to overlapping sequences. This priming was consolidation-dependent and only emerged for sequences learned 24 hours prior to the test. Critically, behavioral integration was related to changes in neural pattern similarity in the medial prefrontal cortex and increases in post-learning rest connectivity between the posterior hippocampus and lateral occipital cortex. These findings suggest that memories with a shared predictive structure become behaviorally and neurally integrated through a consolidation-related restructuring of the learned sequences, providing insight into the relationship between different consolidation mechanisms that support behavioral integration.

Article activity feed

  1. eLife

    Author response:

    Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

    In this paper, Tompary & Davachi present work looking at how memories become integrated over time in the brain, and relating those mechanisms to responses on a priming task as a behavioral measure of memory linkage. They find that remotely but not recently formed memories are behaviorally linked and that this is associated with a change in the neural representation in mPFC. They also find that the same behavioral outcomes are associated with the increased coupling of the posterior hippocampus with category-sensitive parts of the neocortex (LOC) during a post-learning rest period-again only for remotely learned information. There was also correspondence in rest connectivity (posterior hippocampus-LOC) and representational change (mPFC) such that for remote memories specifically, the initial post-learning connectivity enhancement during rest related to longer-term mPFC representational change.

    This work has many strengths. The topic of this paper is very interesting, and the data provide a really nice package in terms of providing a mechanistic account of how memories become integrated over a delay. The paper is also exceptionally well-written and a pleasure to read. There are two studies, including one large behavioral study, and the findings replicate in the smaller fMRI sample. I do however have two fairly substantive concerns about the analytic approach, where more data will be required before we can know whether the interpretations are an appropriate reflection of the findings. These and other concerns are described below.

    Thank you for the positive comments! We are proud of this work, and we feel that the paper is greatly strengthened by the revisions we made in response to your feedback. Please see below for specific changes that we’ve made.

    1. One major concern relates to the lack of a pre-encoding baseline scan prior to recent learning.

    a) First, I think it would be helpful if the authors could clarify why there was no pre-learning rest scan dedicated to the recent condition. Was this simply a feasibility consideration, or were there theoretical reasons why this would be less "clean"? Including this information in the paper would be helpful for context. Apologies if I missed this detail in the paper.

    This is a great point and something that we struggled with when developing this experiment. We considered several factors when deciding whether to include a pre-learning baseline on day two. First, the day 2 scan session was longer than that of day 1 because it included the recognition priming and explicit memory tasks, and the addition of a baseline scan would have made the length of the session longer than a typical scan session – about 2 hours in the scanner in total – and we were concerned that participant engagement would be difficult to sustain across a longer session. Second, we anticipated that the pre-learning scan would not have been a ‘clean’ measure of baseline processing, but rather would include signal related to post-learning processing of the day 1 sequences, as multi-variate reactivation of learned stimuli have been observed in rest scans collected 24-hours after learning (Schlichting & Preston, 2014). We have added these considerations to the Discussion (page 39, lines 1047-1070).

    b) Second, I was hoping the authors could speak to what they think is reflected in the post-encoding "recent" scan. Is it possible that these data could also reflect the processing of the remote memories? I think, though am not positive, that the authors may be alluding to this in the penultimate paragraph of the discussion (p. 33) when noting the LOC-mPFC connectivity findings. Could there be the reinstatement of the old memories due to being back in the same experimental context and so forth? I wonder the extent to which the authors think the data from this scan can be reflected as strictly reflecting recent memories, particularly given it is relative to the pre-encoding baseline from before the remote memories, as well (and therefore in theory could reflect both the remote + recent). (I should also acknowledge that, if it is the case that the authors think there might be some remote memory processing during the recent learning session in general, a pre-learning rest scan might not have been "clean" either, in that it could have reflected some processing of the remote memories-i.e., perhaps a clean pre-learning scan for the recent learning session related to point 1a is simply not possible.)

    We propose that theoretically, the post-learning recent scan could indeed reflect mixture of remote and recent sequences. This is one of the drawbacks of splitting encoding into two sessions rather than combining encoding into one session and splitting retrieval into an immediate and delayed session; any rest scans that are collected on Day 2 may have signal that relates to processing of the Day 1 remote sequences, which is why we decided against the pre-learning baseline for Day 2, as you had noted.

    You are correct that we alluded to in our original submission when discussing the LOC-mPFC coupling result, and we have taken steps to discuss this more explicitly. In Brief, we find greater LOC-mPFC connectivity only after recent learning relative to the pre-learning baseline, and cortical-cortical connectivity could be indicative of processing memories that already have undergone some consolidation (Takashima et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2010). From another vantage point, the mPFC representation of Day 1 learning may have led to increased connectivity with LOC on Day 2 due to Day 1 learning beginning to resemble consolidated prior knowledge (van Kesteren et al., 2010). While this effect is consistent with prior literature and theory, it's unclear why we would find evidence of processing of the remote memories and not the recent memories. Furthermore, the change in LOC-mPFC connectivity in this scan did not correlate with memory behaviors from either learning session, which could be because signal from this scan reflects a mix of processing of the two different learning sessions. With these ideas in mind, we have fleshed out the discussion of the post-encoding ‘recent’ scan in the Discussion (page 38-39, lines 1039-1044).

    c) Third, I am thinking about how both of the above issues might relate to the authors' findings, and would love to see more added to the paper to address this point. Specifically, I assume there are fluctuations in baseline connectivity profile across days within a person, such that the pre-learning connectivity on day 1 might be different from on day 2. Given that, and the lack of a pre-learning connectivity measure on day 2, it would logically follow that the measure of connectivity change from pre- to post-learning is going to be cleaner for the remote memories. In other words, could the lack of connectivity change observed for the recent scan simply be due to the lack of a within-day baseline? Given that otherwise, the post-learning rest should be the same in that it is an immediate reflection of how connectivity changes as a function of learning (depending on whether the authors think that the "recent" scan is actually reflecting "recent + remote"), it seems odd that they both don't show the same corresponding increase in connectivity-which makes me think it may be a baseline difference. I am not sure if this is what the authors are implying when they talk about how day 1 is most similar to prior investigation on p. 20, but if so it might be helpful to state that directly.

    We agree that it is puzzling that we don’t see that hippocampal-LOC connectivity does not also increase after recent learning, equivalently to what we see after remote learning. However, the fact that there is an increase from baseline rest to post-recent rest in mPFC – LOC connectivity suggests that it’s not an issue with baseline, but rather that the post-recent learning scan is reflecting processing of the remote memories (although as a caveat, there is no relationship with priming).

    On what is now page 23, we were referring to the notion that the Day 1 procedure (baseline rest, learning, post-learning rest) is the most straightforward replication of past work that finds a relationship between hippocampal-cortical coupling and later memory. In contrast, the Day 2 learning and rest scan are less ‘clean’ of a replication in that they are taking place in the shadow of Day 1 learning. We have clarified this in the Results (page 23, lines 597-598).

    d) Fourth and very related to my point 1c, I wonder if the lack of correlations for the recent scan with behavior is interpretable, or if it might just be that this is a noisy measure due to imperfect baseline correction. Do the authors have any data or logic they might be able to provide that could speak to these points? One thing that comes to mind is seeing whether the raw post-learning connectivity values (separately for both recent and remote) show the same pattern as the different scores. However, the authors may come up with other clever ways to address this point. If not, it might be worth acknowledging this interpretive challenge in the Discussion.

    We thought of three different approaches that could help us to understand whether the lack of correlations in between coupling and behavior in the recent scan was due to noise. First, we correlated recognition priming with raw hippocampal-LOC coupling separately for pre- and post-learning scans, as in Author response image 1:

    Author response image 1.

    Note that the post-learning chart depicts the relationship between post-remote coupling and remote priming and between post-recent coupling and recent priming (middle). Essentially, post-recent learning coupling did not relate to priming of recently learned sequences (middle; green) while there remains a trend for a relationship between post-remote coupling and priming for remotely learned sequences (middle; blue). However, the significant relationship between coupling and priming that we reported in the paper (right, blue) is driven both by the initial negative relationship that is observed in the pre-learning scan and the positive relationship in the post-remote learning scan. This highlights the importance of using a change score, as there may be spurious initial relationships between connectivity profiles and to-be-learned information that would then mask any learning- and consolidation-related changes.

    We also reasoned that if comparisons between the post-recent learning scan and the baseline scan are noisier than between the post-remote learning and baseline scan, there may be differences in the variance of the change scores across participants, such that changes in coupling from baseline to post-recent rest may be more variable than coupling from baseline to post-remote rest. We conducted F-tests to compare the variance of the change in these two hippocampal-LO correlations and found no reliable difference (ratio of difference: F(22, 22) = 0.811, p = .63).

    Finally, we explored whether hippocampal-LOC coupling is more stable across participants if compared across two rest scans within the same imaging session (baseline and post-remote) versus across two scans across two separate sessions (baseline and post-recent). Interestingly, coupling was not reliably correlated across scans in either case (baseline/post-remote: r = 0.03, p = 0.89 Baseline/post-recent: r = 0.07, p = .74).

    Finally, we evaluated whether hippocampal-LOC coupling was correlated across different rest scans (see Author response image 2). We reasoned that if such coupling was more correlated across baseline and post-remote scans relative to baseline and post-recent scans, that would indicate a within-session stability of participants’ connectivity profiles. At the same time, less correlation of coupling across baseline and post-recent scans would be an indication of a noisier change measure as the measure would additionally include a change in individuals’ connectivity profile over time. We found that there was no difference in the correlation of hipp-LO coupling is across sessions, and the correlation was not reliably significant for either session (baseline/post-remote: r = 0.03, p = 0.89; baseline/post-recent: r = 0.07, p = .74; difference: Steiger’s t = 0.12, p = 0.9).

    Author response image 2.

    We have included the raw correlations with priming (page 25, lines 654-661, Supplemental Figure 6) as well as text describing the comparison of variances (page 25, lines 642-653). We did not add the comparison of hippocampal-LOC coupling across scans to the current manuscript, as an evaluation of stability of such coupling in the context of learning and reactivation seems out of scope of the current focus of the experiment, but we find this result to be worthy of follow-up in future work.

    In summary, further analysis of our data did not reveal any indication that a comparison of rest connectivity across scan sessions inserted noise into the change score between baseline and post-recent learning scans. However, these analyses cannot fully rule that possibility out, and the current analyses do not provide concrete evidence that the post-recent learning scan comprises signals that are a mixture of processing of recent and remote sequences. We discuss these drawbacks in the Discussion (page 39, lines 1047-1070).

    1. My second major concern is how the authors have operationalized integration and differentiation. The pattern similarity analysis uses an overall correspondence between the neural similarity and a predicted model as the main metric. In the predicted model, C items that are indirectly associated are more similar to one another than they are C items that are entirely unrelated. The authors are then looking at a change in correspondence (correlation) between the neural data and that prediction model from pre- to post-learning. However, a change in the degree of correspondence with the predicted matrix could be driven by either the unrelated items becoming less similar or the related ones becoming more similar (or both!). Since the interpretation in the paper focuses on change to indirectly related C items, it would be important to report those values directly. For instance, as evidence of differentiation, it would be important to show that there is a greater decrease in similarity for indirectly associated C items than it is for unrelated C items (or even a smaller increase) from pre to post, or that C items that are indirectly related are less similar than are unrelated C items post but not pre-learning. Performing this analysis would confirm that the pattern of results matches the authors' interpretation. This would also impact the interpretation of the subsequent analyses that involve the neural integration measures (e.g., correlation analyses like those on p. 16, which may or may not be driven by increased similarity among overlapping C pairs). I should add that given the specificity to the remote learning in mPFC versus recent in LOC and anterior hippocampus, it is clearly the case that something interesting is going on. However, I think we need more data to understand fully what that "something" is.

    We recognize the importance of understanding whether model fits (and changes to them) are driven by similarity of overlapping pairs or non-overlapping pairs. We have modified all figures that visualize model fits to the neural integration model to separately show fits for pre- and post-learning (Figure 3 for mPFC, Supp. Figure 5 for LOC, Supp. Figure 9 for AB similarity in anterior hippocampus & LOC). We have additionally added supplemental figures to show the complete breakdown of similarity each region in a 2 (pre/post) x 2 (overlapping/non-overlapping sequence) x 2 (recent/remote) chart. We decided against including only these latter charts rather than the model fits since the model fits strike a good balance between information and readability. We have also modified text in various sections to focus on these new results.

    In brief, the decrease in model fit for mPFC for the remote sequences was driven primarily by a decrease in similarity for the overlapping C items and not the non-overlapping ones (Supplementary Figure 3, page 18, lines 468-472).

    Interestingly, in LOC, all C items grew more similar after learning, regardless of their overlap or learning session, but the increase in model fit for C items in the recent condition was driven by a larger increase in similarity for overlapping pairs relative to non-overlapping ones (Supp. Figure 5, page 21, lines 533-536).

    We also visualized AB similarity in the anterior hippocampus and LOC in a similar fashion (Supplementary Figure 9).

    We have also edited the Methods sections with updated details of these analyses (page 52, lines 1392-1397). We think that including these results considerably strengthen our claims and we are pleased to have them included.

    1. The priming task occurred before the post-learning exposure phase and could have impacted the representations. More consideration of this in the paper would be useful. Most critically, since the priming task involves seeing the related C items back-to-back, it would be important to consider whether this experience could have conceivably impacted the neural integration indices. I believe it never would have been the case that unrelated C items were presented sequentially during the priming task, i.e., that related C items always appeared together in this task. I think again the specificity of the remote condition is key and perhaps the authors can leverage this to support their interpretation. Can the authors consider this possibility in the Discussion?

    It's true that only C items from the same sequence were presented back-to-back during the priming task, and that this presentation may interfere with observations from the post-learning exposure scan that followed it. We agree that it is worth considering this caveat and have added language in the Discussion (page 40, lines 1071-1086). When designing the study, we reasoned that it was more important for the behavioral priming task to come before the exposure scans, as all items were shown only once in that task, whereas they were shown 4-5 times in a random order in the post-learning exposure phase. Because of this difference in presentation times, and because behavioral priming findings tend to be very sensitive, we concluded that it was more important to protect the priming task from the exposure scan instead of the reverse.

    We reasoned, however, that the additional presentation of the C items in the recognition priming task would not substantially override the sequence learning, as C items were each presented 16 times in their sequence (ABC1 and ABC2 16 times each). Furthermore, as this reviewer suggests, the order of C items during recognition was the same for recent and remote conditions, so the fact that we find a selective change in neural representation for the remote condition and don’t also see that change for the recent condition is additional assurance that the recognition priming order did not substantially impact the representations.

    1. For the priming task, based on the Figure 2A caption it seems as though every sequence contributes to both the control and primed conditions, but (I believe) this means that the control transition always happens first (and they are always back-to-back). Is this a concern? If RTs are changing over time (getting faster), it would be helpful to know whether the priming effects hold after controlling for trial numbers. I do not think this is a big issue because if it were, you would not expect to see the specificity of the remotely learned information. However, it would be helpful to know given the order of these conditions has to be fixed in their design.

    This is a correct understanding of the trial orders in the recognition priming task. We chose to involve the baseline items in the control condition to boost power – this way, priming of each sequence could be tested, while only presenting each item once in this task, as repetition in the recognition phase would have further facilitated response times and potentially masked any priming effects. We agree that accounting for trial order would be useful here, so we ran a mixed-effects linear model to examine responses times both as a function of trial number and of priming condition (primed/control). While there is indeed a large effect of trial number such that participants got faster over time, the priming effect originally observed in the remote condition still holds at the same time. We now report this analysis in the Results section (page 14, lines 337-349 for Expt 1 and pages 14-15, lines 360-362 for Expt 2).

    1. The authors should be cautious about the general conclusion that memories with overlapping temporal regularities become neurally integrated - given their findings in MPFC are more consistent with overall differentiation (though as noted above, I think we need more data on this to know for sure what is going on).

    We realize this conclusion was overly simplistic and, in several places, have revised the general conclusions to be more specific about the nuanced similarity findings.

    1. It would be worth stating a few more details and perhaps providing additional logic or justification in the main text about the pre- and post-exposure phases were set up and why. How many times each object was presented pre and post, and how the sequencing was determined (were any constraints put in place e.g., such that C1 and C2 did not appear close in time?). What was the cover task (I think this is important to the interpretation & so belongs in the main paper)? Were there considerations involving the fact that this is a different sequence of the same objects the participants would later be learning - e.g., interference, etc.?

    These details can be found in the Methods section (pages 50-51, lines 1337-1353) and we’ve added a new summary of that section in the Results (page 17, lines 424- 425 and 432-435). In brief, a visual hash tag appeared on a small subset of images and participants pressed a button when this occurred, and C1 and C2 objects were presented in separate scans (as were A and B objects) to minimize inflated neural similarity due to temporal proximity.

    Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

    The manuscript by Tompary & Davachi presents results from two experiments, one behavior only and one fMRI plus behavior. They examine the important question of how to separate object memories (C1 and C2) that are never experienced together in time and become linked by shared predictive cues in a sequence (A followed by B followed by one of the C items). The authors developed an implicit priming task that provides a novel behavioral metric for such integration. They find significant C1-C2 priming for sequences that were learned 24h prior to the test, but not for recently learned sequences, suggesting that associative links between the two originally separate memories emerge over an extended period of consolidation. The fMRI study relates this behavioral integration effect to two neural metrics: pattern similarity changes in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) as a measure of neural integration, and changes in hippocampal-LOC connectivity as a measure of post-learning consolidation. While fMRI patterns in mPFC overall show differentiation rather than integration (i.e., C1-C2 representational distances become larger), the authors find a robust correlation such that increasing pattern similarity in mPFC relates to stronger integration in the priming test, and this relationship is again specific to remote memories. Moreover, connectivity between the posterior hippocampus and LOC during post-learning rest is positively related to the behavioral integration effect as well as the mPFC neural similarity index, again specifically for remote memories. Overall, this is a coherent set of findings with interesting theoretical implications for consolidation theories, which will be of broad interest to the memory, learning, and predictive coding communities.

    Strengths:

    1. The implicit associative priming task designed for this study provides a promising new tool for assessing the formation of mnemonic links that influence behavior without explicit retrieval demands. The authors find an interesting dissociation between this implicit measure of memory integration and more commonly used explicit inference measures: a priming effect on the implicit task only evolved after a 24h consolidation period, while the ability to explicitly link the two critical object memories is present immediately after learning. While speculative at this point, these two measures thus appear to tap into neocortical and hippocampal learning processes, respectively, and this potential dissociation will be of interest to future studies investigating time-dependent integration processes in memory.
    1. The experimental task is well designed for isolating pre- vs post-learning changes in neural similarity and connectivity, including important controls of baseline neural similarity and connectivity.
    1. The main claim of a consolidation-dependent effect is supported by a coherent set of findings that relate behavioral integration to neural changes. The specificity of the effects on remote memories makes the results particularly interesting and compelling.
    1. The authors are transparent about unexpected results, for example, the finding that overall similarity in mPFC is consistent with a differentiation rather than an integration model.

    Thank you for the positive comments!

    Weaknesses:

    1. The sequence learning and recognition priming tasks are cleverly designed to isolate the effects of interest while controlling for potential order effects. However, due to the complex nature of the task, it is difficult for the reader to infer all the transition probabilities between item types and how they may influence the behavioral priming results. For example, baseline items (BL) are interspersed between repeated sequences during learning, and thus presumably can only occur before an A item or after a C item. This seems to create non-random predictive relationships such that C is often followed by BL, and BL by A items. If this relationship is reversed during the recognition priming task, where the sequence is always BL-C1-C2, this violation of expectations might slow down reaction times and deflate the baseline measure. It would be helpful if the manuscript explicitly reported transition probabilities for each relevant item type in the priming task relative to the sequence learning task and discussed how a match vs mismatch may influence the observed priming effects.

    We have added a table of transition probabilities across the learning, recognition priming, and exposure scans (now Table 1, page 48). We have also included some additional description of the change in transition probabilities across different tasks in the Methods section. Specifically, if participants are indeed learning item types and rules about their order, then both the control and the primed conditions would violate that order. Since C1 and C2 items never appeared together, viewing C1 would give rise to an expectation of seeing a BL item, which would also be violated. This suggests that our priming effects are driven by sequence-specific relationships rather than learning of the probabilities of different item types. We’ve added this consideration to the Methods section (page 45, lines 1212-1221).

    Another critical point to consider (and that the transition probabilities do not reflect) is that during learning, while C is followed either by A or BL, they are followed by different A or BL items. In contrast, a given A is always followed by the same B object, which is always followed by one of two C objects. While the order of item types is semi-predictable, the order of objects (specific items) themselves are not. This can be seen in the response times during learning, such that response times for A and BL items are always slower than for B and C items. We have explained this nuance in the figure text for Table 1.

    1. The choice of what regions of interest to include in the different sets of analyses could be better motivated. For example, even though briefly discussed in the intro, it remains unclear why the posterior but not the anterior hippocampus is of interest for the connectivity analyses, and why the main target is LOC, not mPFC, given past results including from this group (Tompary & Davachi, 2017). Moreover, for readers not familiar with this literature, it would help if references were provided to suggest that a predictable > unpredictable contrast is well suited for functionally defining mPFC, as done in the present study.

    We have clarified our reasoning for each of these choices throughout the manuscript and believe that our logic is now much more transparent. For an expanded reasoning of why we were motivated to look at posterior and not anterior hippocampus, see pages 6-7, lines 135-159, and our response to R2. In brief, past research focusing on post-encoding connectivity with the hippocampus suggests that posterior aspect is more likely to couple with category-selective cortex after learning neutral, non-rewarded objects much like the stimuli used in the present study.

    We also clarify our reasoning for LOC over mPFC. While theoretically, mPFC is thought to be a candidate region for coupling with the hippocampus during consolidation, the bulk of empirical work to date has revealed post-encoding connectivity between the hippocampus and category-selective cortex in the ventral and occipital lobes (page 6, lines 123-134).

    As for the use of the predictable > unpredictable contrast for functionally defining cortical regions, we reasoned that cortical regions that were sensitive to the temporal regularities generated by the sequences may be further involved in their offline consolidation and long-term storage (Danker & Anderson, 2010; Davachi & Danker, 2013; McClelland et al., 1995). We have added this justification to the Methods section (page 18, lines 454-460).

    1. Relatedly, multiple comparison corrections should be applied in the fMRI integration and connectivity analyses whenever the same contrast is performed on multiple regions in an exploratory manner.

    We now correct for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni correction, and this correction depends on the number of regions in which each analysis is conducted. Please see page 55, lines 1483-1490, in the Methods section for details of each analysis.

    Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

    The authors of this manuscript sought to illuminate a link between a behavioral measure of integration and neural markers of cortical integration associated with systems consolidation (post-encoding connectivity, change in representational neural overlap). To that aim, participants incidentally encoded sequences of objects in the fMRI scanner. Unbeknownst to participants, the first two objects of the presented ABC triplet sequences overlapped for a given pair of sequences. This allowed the authors to probe the integration of unique C objects that were never directly presented in the same sequence, but which shared the same preceding A and B objects. They encoded one set of objects on Day 1 (remote condition), another set of objects 24 hours later (recent condition) and tested implicit and explicit memory for the learned sequences on Day 2. They additionally collected baseline and post-encoding resting-state scans. As their measure of behavioral integration, the authors examined reaction time during an Old/New judgement task for C objects depending on if they were preceded by a C object from an overlapping sequence (primed condition) versus a baseline object. They found faster reaction times for the primed objects compared to the control condition for remote but not recently learned objects, suggesting that the C objects from overlapping sequences became integrated over time. They then examined pattern similarity in a priori ROIs as a measure of neural integration and found that participants showing evidence of integration of C objects from overlapping sequences in the medial prefrontal cortex for remotely learned objects also showed a stronger implicit priming effect between those C objects over time. When they examined the change in connectivity between their ROIs after encoding, they also found that connectivity between the posterior hippocampus and lateral occipital cortex correlated with larger priming effects for remotely learned objects, and that lateral occipital connectivity with the medial prefrontal cortex was related to neural integration of remote objects from overlapping sequences.

    The authors aim to provide evidence of a relationship between behavioral and neural measures of integration with consolidation is interesting, important, and difficult to achieve given the longitudinal nature of studies required to answer this question. Strengths of this study include a creative behavioral task, and solid modelling approaches for fMRI data with careful control for several known confounds such as bold activation on pattern analysis results, motion, and physiological noise. The authors replicate their behavioral observations across two separate experiments, one of which included a large sample size, and found similar results that speak to the reliability of the observed behavioral phenomenon. In addition, they document several correlations between neural measures and task performance, lending functional significance to their neural findings.

    Thank you for this positive assessment of our study!

    However, this study is not without notable weaknesses that limit the strength of the manuscript. The authors report a behavioral priming effect suggestive of integration of remote but not recent memories, leading to the interpretation that the priming effect emerges with consolidation. However, they did not observe a reliable interaction between the priming condition and learning session (recent/remote) on reaction times, meaning that the priming effect for remote memories was not reliably greater than that observed for recent. In addition, the emergence of a priming effect for remote memories does not appear to be due to faster reaction times for primed targets over time (the condition of interest), but rather, slower reaction times for control items in the remote condition compared to recent. These issues limit the strength of the claim that the priming effect observed is due to C items of interest being integrated in a consolidation-dependent manner.

    We acknowledge that the lack of a day by condition interaction in the behavioral priming effect should discussed and now discuss this data in a more nuanced manner. While it’s true that the priming effect emerges due to a slowing of the control items over time, this slowing is consistent with classic time-dependent effects demonstrating slower response times for more delayed memories. The fact that the response times in the primed condition does not show this slowing can be interpreted as a protection against this slowing that would otherwise occur. Please see page 29, lines 758-766, for this added discussion.

    Similarly, the interactions between neural variables of interest and learning session needed to strongly show a significant consolidation-related effect in the brain were sometimes tenuous. There was no reliable difference in neural representational pattern analysis fit to a model of neural integration between the short and long delays in the medial prefrontal cortex or lateral occipital cortex, nor was the posterior hippocampus-lateral occipital cortex post-encoding connectivity correlation with subsequent priming significantly different for recent and remote memories. While the relationship between integration model fit in the medial prefrontal cortex and subsequent priming (which was significantly different from that occurring for recent memories) was one of the stronger findings of the paper in favor of a consolidation-related effect on behavior, is it possible that lack of a behavioral priming effect for recent memories due to possible issues with the control condition could mask a correlation between neural and behavioral integration in the recent memory condition?

    While we acknowledge that lack of a statistically reliable interaction between neural measures and behavioral priming in many cases, we are heartened by the reliable difference in the relationship between mPFC similarity and priming over time, which was our main planned prediction. In addition to adding caveats in the discussion about the neural measures and behavioral findings in the recent condition (see our response to R1.1 and R1.4 for more details), we have added language throughout the manuscript noting the need to interpret these data with caution.

    These limitations are especially notable when one considers that priming does not classically require a period of prolonged consolidation to occur, and prominent models of systems consolidation rather pertain to explicit memory. While the authors have provided evidence that neural integration in the medial prefrontal cortex, as well as post-encoding coupling between the lateral occipital cortex and posterior hippocampus, are related to faster reaction times for primed objects of overlapping sequences compared to their control condition, more work is needed to verify that the observed findings indeed reflect consolidation dependent integration as proposed.

    We agree that more work is needed to provide converging evidence for these novel findings. However, we wish to counter the notion that systems consolidation models are relevant only for explicit memories. Although models of systems consolidation often mention transformations from episodic to semantic memory, the critical mechanisms that define the models involve changes in the neural ensembles of a memory that is initially laid down in the hippocampus and is taught to cortex over time. This transformation of neural traces is not specific to explicit/declarative forms of memory. For example, implicit statistical learning initially depends on intact hippocampal function (Schapiro et al., 2014) and improves over consolidation (Durrant et al., 2011, 2013; Kóbor et al., 2017).

    Second, while there are many classical findings of priming during or immediately after learning, there are several instances of priming used to measure consolidation-related changes to newly learned information. For instance, priming has been used as a measure of lexical integration, demonstrating that new word learning benefits from a night of sleep (Wang et al., 2017; Gaskell et al., 2019) or a 1-week delay (Tamminen & Gaskell, 2013). The issue is not whether priming can occur immediately, it is whether priming increases with a delay.

    Finally, it is helpful to think about models of memory systems that divide memory representations not by their explicit/implicit nature, but along other important dimensions such as their neural bases, their flexibility vs rigidity, and their capacity for rapid vs slow learning (Henke, 2010). Considering this evidence, we suggest that systems consolidation models are most useful when considering how transformations in the underlying neural memory representation affects its behavioral expression, rather than focusing on the extent that the memory representation is explicit or implicit.

    With all this said, we have added text to the discussion reminding the reader that there was no statistically significant difference in priming as a function of the delay (page 29, lines 764 - 766). However, we are encouraged by the fact that the relationship between priming and mPFC neural similarity was significantly stronger for remotely learned objects relative to recently learned ones, as this is directly in line with systems consolidation theories.

    References

    Abolghasem, Z., Teng, T. H.-T., Nexha, E., Zhu, C., Jean, C. S., Castrillon, M., Che, E., Di Nallo, E. V., & Schlichting, M. L. (2023). Learning strategy differentially impacts memory connections in children and adults. Developmental Science, 26(4), e13371. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13371

    Dobbins, I. G., Schnyer, D. M., Verfaellie, M., & Schacter, D. L. (2004). Cortical activity reductions during repetition priming can result from rapid response learning. Nature, 428(6980), 316–319. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02400

    Durrant, S. J., Cairney, S. A., & Lewis, P. A. (2013). Overnight consolidation aids the transfer of statistical knowledge from the medial temporal lobe to the striatum. Cerebral Cortex, 23(10), 2467–2478. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs244

    Durrant, S. J., Taylor, C., Cairney, S., & Lewis, P. A. (2011). Sleep-dependent consolidation of statistical learning. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 1322–1331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.015

    Gaskell, M. G., Cairney, S. A., & Rodd, J. M. (2019). Contextual priming of word meanings is stabilized over sleep. Cognition, 182, 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.09.007

    Henke, K. (2010). A model for memory systems based on processing modes rather than consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(7), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2850

    Kóbor, A., Janacsek, K., Takács, Á., & Nemeth, D. (2017). Statistical learning leads to persistent memory: Evidence for one-year consolidation. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 760. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00807-3

    Kuhl, B. A., & Chun, M. M. (2014). Successful remembering elicits event-specific activity patterns in lateral parietal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 34(23), 8051–8060. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4328-13.2014

    Richter, F. R., Chanales, A. J. H., & Kuhl, B. A. (2016). Predicting the integration of overlapping memories by decoding mnemonic processing states during learning. NeuroImage, 124, Part A, 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.08.051

    Schapiro, A. C., Gregory, E., Landau, B., McCloskey, M., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2014). The necessity of the medial-temporal lobe for statistical learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00578

    Schlichting, M. L., & Preston, A. R. (2014). Memory reactivation during rest supports upcoming learning of related content. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(44), 15845–15850. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404396111

    Smith, J. F., Alexander, G. E., Chen, K., Husain, F. T., Kim, J., Pajor, N., & Horwitz, B. (2010). Imaging systems level consolidation of novel associate memories: A longitudinal neuroimaging study. NeuroImage, 50(2), 826–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.053

    Takashima, A., Nieuwenhuis, I. L. C., Jensen, O., Talamini, L. M., Rijpkema, M., & Fernández, G. (2009). Shift from hippocampal to neocortical centered retrieval network with consolidation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(32), 10087–10093. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0799-09.2009

    Tamminen, J., & Gaskell, M. G. (2013). Novel word integration in the mental lexicon: Evidence from unmasked and masked semantic priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(5), 1001–1025. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.724694

    van Kesteren, M. T. R. van, Fernández, G., Norris, D. G., & Hermans, E. J. (2010). Persistent schema-dependent hippocampal-neocortical connectivity during memory encoding and postencoding rest in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(16), 7550–7555. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914892107

    Wang, H.-C., Savage, G., Gaskell, M. G., Paulin, T., Robidoux, S., & Castles, A. (2017). Bedding down new words: Sleep promotes the emergence of lexical competition in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(4), 1186–1193. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1182-7

  2. eLife

    eLife assessment

    This important study investigates how memory representations are transformed over time (24h period). The work advances our understanding of the neural processes supporting the behavioral integration of memories for distinct events that are never experienced together in time but are linked by shared predictive cues. Evidence supporting the claims is solid, and reporting of additional comparisons would have strengthened the study.

  3. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

    In this paper, Tompary & Davachi present work looking at how memories become integrated over time in the brain, and relating those mechanisms to responses on a priming task as a behavioral measure of memory linkage. They find that remotely but not recently formed memories are behaviorally linked and that this is associated with a change in the neural representation in mPFC. They also find that the same behavioral outcomes are associated with the increased coupling of the posterior hippocampus with category-sensitive parts of the neocortex (LOC) during a post-learning rest period-again only for remotely learned information. There was also correspondence in rest connectivity (posterior hippocampus-LOC) and representational change (mPFC) such that for remote memories specifically, the initial post-learning connectivity enhancement during rest related to longer-term mPFC representational change.

    This work has many strengths. The topic of this paper is very interesting, and the data provide a really nice package in terms of providing a mechanistic account of how memories become integrated over a delay. The paper is also exceptionally well-written and a pleasure to read. There are two studies, including one large behavioral study, and the findings replicate in the smaller fMRI sample. I do however have two fairly substantive concerns about the analytic approach, where more data will be required before we can know whether the interpretations are an appropriate reflection of the findings. These and other concerns are described below.

    (1) One major concern relates to the lack of a pre-encoding baseline scan prior to recent learning.

    a) First, I think it would be helpful if the authors could clarify why there was no pre-learning rest scan dedicated to the recent condition. Was this simply a feasibility consideration, or were there theoretical reasons why this would be less "clean"? Including this information in the paper would be helpful for context. Apologies if I missed this detail in the paper.

    b) Second, I was hoping the authors could speak to what they think is reflected in the post-encoding "recent" scan. Is it possible that these data could also reflect the processing of the remote memories? I think, though am not positive, that the authors may be alluding to this in the penultimate paragraph of the discussion (p. 33) when noting the LOC-mPFC connectivity findings. Could there be the reinstatement of the old memories due to being back in the same experimental context and so forth? I wonder the extent to which the authors think the data from this scan can be reflected as strictly reflecting recent memories, particularly given it is relative to the pre-encoding baseline from before the remote memories, as well (and therefore in theory could reflect both the remote + recent). (I should also acknowledge that, if it is the case that the authors think there might be some remote memory processing during the recent learning session in general, a pre-learning rest scan might not have been "clean" either, in that it could have reflected some processing of the remote memories-i.e., perhaps a clean pre-learning scan for the recent learning session related to point 1a is simply not possible.)

    c) Third, I am thinking about how both of the above issues might relate to the authors' findings, and would love to see more added to the paper to address this point. Specifically, I assume there are fluctuations in baseline connectivity profile across days within a person, such that the pre-learning connectivity on day 1 might be different from on day 2. Given that, and the lack of a pre-learning connectivity measure on day 2, it would logically follow that the measure of connectivity change from pre- to post-learning is going to be cleaner for the remote memories. In other words, could the lack of connectivity change observed for the recent scan simply be due to the lack of a within-day baseline? Given that otherwise, the post-learning rest should be the same in that it is an immediate reflection of how connectivity changes as a function of learning (depending on whether the authors think that the "recent" scan is actually reflecting "recent + remote"), it seems odd that they both don't show the same corresponding increase in connectivity-which makes me think it may be a baseline difference. I am not sure if this is what the authors are implying when they talk about how day 1 is most similar to prior investigation on p. 20, but if so it might be helpful to state that directly.

    d) Fourth and very related to my point 1c, I wonder if the lack of correlations for the recent scan with behavior is interpretable, or if it might just be that this is a noisy measure due to imperfect baseline correction. Do the authors have any data or logic they might be able to provide that could speak to these points? One thing that comes to mind is seeing whether the raw post-learning connectivity values (separately for both recent and remote) show the same pattern as the different scores. However, the authors may come up with other clever ways to address this point. If not, it might be worth acknowledging this interpretive challenge in the Discussion.

    (2) My second major concern is how the authors have operationalized integration and differentiation. The pattern similarity analysis uses an overall correspondence between the neural similarity and a predicted model as the main metric. In the predicted model, C items that are indirectly associated are more similar to one another than they are C items that are entirely unrelated. The authors are then looking at a change in correspondence (correlation) between the neural data and that prediction model from pre- to post-learning. However, a change in the degree of correspondence with the predicted matrix could be driven by either the unrelated items becoming less similar or the related ones becoming more similar (or both!). Since the interpretation in the paper focuses on change to indirectly related C items, it would be important to report those values directly. For instance, as evidence of differentiation, it would be important to show that there is a greater decrease in similarity for indirectly associated C items than it is for unrelated C items (or even a smaller increase) from pre to post, or that C items that are indirectly related are less similar than are unrelated C items post but not pre-learning. Performing this analysis would confirm that the pattern of results matches the authors' interpretation. This would also impact the interpretation of the subsequent analyses that involve the neural integration measures (e.g., correlation analyses like those on p. 16, which may or may not be driven by increased similarity among overlapping C pairs). I should add that given the specificity to the remote learning in mPFC versus recent in LOC and anterior hippocampus, it is clearly the case that something interesting is going on. However, I think we need more data to understand fully what that "something" is.

    (3) The priming task occurred before the post-learning exposure phase and could have impacted the representations. More consideration of this in the paper would be useful. Most critically, since the priming task involves seeing the related C items back-to-back, it would be important to consider whether this experience could have conceivably impacted the neural integration indices. I believe it never would have been the case that unrelated C items were presented sequentially during the priming task, i.e., that related C items always appeared together in this task. I think again the specificity of the remote condition is key and perhaps the authors can leverage this to support their interpretation. Can the authors consider this possibility in the Discussion?

    (4) For the priming task, based on the Figure 2A caption it seems as though every sequence contributes to both the control and primed conditions, but (I believe) this means that the control transition always happens first (and they are always back-to-back). Is this a concern? If RTs are changing over time (getting faster), it would be helpful to know whether the priming effects hold after controlling for trial numbers. I do not think this is a big issue because if it were, you would not expect to see the specificity of the remotely learned information. However, it would be helpful to know given the order of these conditions has to be fixed in their design.

    (5) The authors should be cautious about the general conclusion that memories with overlapping temporal regularities become neurally integrated - given their findings in MPFC are more consistent with overall differentiation (though as noted above, I think we need more data on this to know for sure what is going on).

    (6) It would be worth stating a few more details and perhaps providing additional logic or justification in the main text about the pre and post-exposure phases were set up and why. How many times each object was presented pre and post, and how the sequencing was determined (were any constraints put in place e.g., such that C1 and C2 did not appear close in time?). What was the cover task (I think this is important to the interpretation & so belongs in the main paper)? Were there considerations involving the fact that this is a different sequence of the same objects the participants would later be learning - e.g., interference, etc.?

  4. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

    The manuscript by Tompary & Davachi presents results from two experiments, one behavior only and one fMRI plus behavior. They examine the important question of how to separate object memories (C1 and C2) that are never experienced together in time and become linked by shared predictive cues in a sequence (A followed by B followed by one of the C items). The authors developed an implicit priming task that provides a novel behavioral metric for such integration. They find significant C1-C2 priming for sequences that were learned 24h prior to the test, but not for recently learned sequences, suggesting that associative links between the two originally separate memories emerge over an extended period of consolidation. The fMRI study relates this behavioral integration effect to two neural metrics: pattern similarity changes in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) as a measure of neural integration, and changes in hippocampal-LOC connectivity as a measure of post-learning consolidation. While fMRI patterns in mPFC overall show differentiation rather than integration (i.e., C1-C2 representational distances become larger), the authors find a robust correlation such that increasing pattern similarity in mPFC relates to stronger integration in the priming test, and this relationship is again specific to remote memories. Moreover, connectivity between the posterior hippocampus and LOC during post-learning rest is positively related to the behavioral integration effect as well as the mPFC neural similarity index, again specifically for remote memories. Overall, this is a coherent set of findings with interesting theoretical implications for consolidation theories, which will be of broad interest to the memory, learning, and predictive coding communities.

    Strengths:

    (1) The implicit associative priming task designed for this study provides a promising new tool for assessing the formation of mnemonic links that influence behavior without explicit retrieval demands. The authors find an interesting dissociation between this implicit measure of memory integration and more commonly used explicit inference measures: a priming effect on the implicit task only evolved after a 24h consolidation period, while the ability to explicitly link the two critical object memories is present immediately after learning. While speculative at this point, these two measures thus appear to tap into neocortical and hippocampal learning processes, respectively, and this potential dissociation will be of interest to future studies investigating time-dependent integration processes in memory.

    (2) The experimental task is well designed for isolating pre- vs post-learning changes in neural similarity and connectivity, including important controls of baseline neural similarity and connectivity.

    (3) The main claim of a consolidation-dependent effect is supported by a coherent set of findings that relate behavioral integration to neural changes. The specificity of the effects on remote memories makes the results particularly interesting and compelling.

    (4) The authors are transparent about unexpected results, for example, the finding that overall similarity in mPFC is consistent with a differentiation rather than an integration model.

    Weaknesses:

    (1) The sequence learning and recognition priming tasks are cleverly designed to isolate the effects of interest while controlling for potential order effects. However, due to the complex nature of the task, it is difficult for the reader to infer all the transition probabilities between item types and how they may influence the behavioral priming results. For example, baseline items (BL) are interspersed between repeated sequences during learning, and thus presumably can only occur before an A item or after a C item. This seems to create non-random predictive relationships such that C is often followed by BL, and BL by A items. If this relationship is reversed during the recognition priming task, where the sequence is always BL-C1-C2, this violation of expectations might slow down reaction times and deflate the baseline measure. It would be helpful if the manuscript explicitly reported transition probabilities for each relevant item type in the priming task relative to the sequence learning task and discussed how a match vs mismatch may influence the observed priming effects.

    (2) The choice of what regions of interest to include in the different sets of analyses could be better motivated. For example, even though briefly discussed in the intro, it remains unclear why the posterior but not the anterior hippocampus is of interest for the connectivity analyses, and why the main target is LOC, not mPFC, given past results including from this group (Tompary & Davachi, 2017). Moreover, for readers not familiar with this literature, it would help if references were provided to suggest that a predictable > unpredictable contrast is well suited for functionally defining mPFC, as done in the present study.

    (3) Relatedly, multiple comparison corrections should be applied in the fMRI integration and connectivity analyses whenever the same contrast is performed on multiple regions in an exploratory manner.

  5. eLife

    Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

    The authors of this manuscript sought to illuminate a link between a behavioral measure of integration and neural markers of cortical integration associated with systems consolidation (post-encoding connectivity, change in representational neural overlap). To that aim, participants incidentally encoded sequences of objects in the fMRI scanner. Unbeknownst to participants, the first two objects of the presented ABC triplet sequences overlapped for a given pair of sequences. This allowed the authors to probe the integration of unique C objects that were never directly presented in the same sequence, but which shared the same preceding A and B objects. They encoded one set of objects on Day 1 (remote condition), another set of objects 24 hours later (recent condition) and tested implicit and explicit memory for the learned sequences on Day 2. They additionally collected baseline and post-encoding resting-state scans. As their measure of behavioral integration, the authors examined reaction time during an Old/New judgement task for C objects depending on if they were preceded by a C object from an overlapping sequence (primed condition) versus a baseline object. They found faster reaction times for the primed objects compared to the control condition for remote but not recently learned objects, suggesting that the C objects from overlapping sequences became integrated over time. They then examined pattern similarity in a priori ROIs as a measure of neural integration and found that participants showing evidence of integration of C objects from overlapping sequences in the medial prefrontal cortex for remotely learned objects also showed a stronger implicit priming effect between those C objects over time. When they examined the change in connectivity between their ROIs after encoding, they also found that connectivity between the posterior hippocampus and lateral occipital cortex correlated with larger priming effects for remotely learned objects, and that lateral occipital connectivity with the medial prefrontal cortex was related to neural integration of remote objects from overlapping sequences.

    The authors aim to provide evidence of a relationship between behavioral and neural measures of integration with consolidation is interesting, important, and difficult to achieve given the longitudinal nature of studies required to answer this question. Strengths of this study include a creative behavioral task, and solid modelling approaches for fMRI data with careful control for several known confounds such as bold activation on pattern analysis results, motion, and physiological noise. The authors replicate their behavioral observations across two separate experiments, one of which included a large sample size, and found similar results that speak to the reliability of the observed behavioral phenomenon. In addition, they document several correlations between neural measures and task performance, lending functional significance to their neural findings.

    However, this study is not without notable weaknesses that limit the strength of the manuscript. The authors report a behavioral priming effect suggestive of integration of remote but not recent memories, leading to the interpretation that the priming effect emerges with consolidation. However, they did not observe a reliable interaction between the priming condition and learning session (recent/remote) on reaction times, meaning that the priming effect for remote memories was not reliably greater than that observed for recent. In addition, the emergence of a priming effect for remote memories does not appear to be due to faster reaction times for primed targets over time (the condition of interest), but rather, slower reaction times for control items in the remote condition compared to recent. These issues limit the strength of the claim that the priming effect observed is due to C items of interest being integrated in a consolidation-dependent manner.

    Similarly, the interactions between neural variables of interest and learning session needed to strongly show a significant consolidation-related effect in the brain were sometimes tenuous. There was no reliable difference in neural representational pattern analysis fit to a model of neural integration between the short and long delays in the medial prefrontal cortex or lateral occipital cortex, nor was the posterior hippocampus-lateral occipital cortex post-encoding connectivity correlation with subsequent priming significantly different for recent and remote memories. While the relationship between integration model fit in the medial prefrontal cortex and subsequent priming (which was significantly different from that occurring for recent memories) was one of the stronger findings of the paper in favor of a consolidation-related effect on behavior, is it possible that lack of a behavioral priming effect for recent memories due to possible issues with the control condition could mask a correlation between neural and behavioral integration in the recent memory condition?

    These limitations are especially notable when one considers that priming does not classically require a period of prolonged consolidation to occur, and prominent models of systems consolidation rather pertain to explicit memory. While the authors have provided evidence that neural integration in the medial prefrontal cortex, as well as post-encoding coupling between the lateral occipital cortex and posterior hippocampus, are related to faster reaction times for primed objects of overlapping sequences compared to their control condition, more work is needed to verify that the observed findings indeed reflect consolidation dependent integration as proposed.

  6. Version published to 10.1101/2022.10.20.513126v1 on bioRxiv