Alexandros Kafkas

Recognition memory strength is predicted by pupillary responses at encoding while fixation patterns distinguish recollection from familiarity

Thirty-five healthy participants incidentally encoded a set of man-made and natural object pictures, while their pupil response and eye movements were recorded. At retrieval, studied and new stimuli were rated as novel, familiar (strong, moderate, or weak), or recollected. We found that both pupil response and fixation patterns at encoding predict later recognition memory strength. The extent of pupillary response accompanying incidental encoding was found to be predictive of subsequent memory. In addition, the number of fixations was also predictive of later recognition memory strength, suggesting that the accumulation of greater visual detail, even for single objects, is critical for the creation of a strong memory. Moreover, fixation patterns at encoding distinguished between recollection and familiarity at retrieval, with more dispersed fixations predicting familiarity and more clustered fixations predicting recollection. These data reveal close links between the autonomic control of pupil responses and eye movement patterns on the one hand and memory encoding on the other. Moreover, the data illustrate quantitative as well as qualitative differences in the incidental visual processing of stimuli, which are differentially predictive of the strength and the kind of memory experienced at recognition.

Familiarity and recollection produce distinct eye movement, pupil and medial temporal lobe responses when memory strength is matched.

Two experiments explored eye measures (fixations and pupil response patterns) and brain responses (BOLD) accompanying the recognition of visual object stimuli based on familiarity and recollection. In both experiments, the use of a modified remember/know procedure led to high confidence and matched accuracy levels characterising strong familiarity (F3) and recollection (R) responses. In Experiment 1, visual scanning behaviour at retrieval distinguished familiarity-based from recollection-based recognition. Recollection, relative to strength-matched familiarity, involved significantly larger pupil dilations and more dispersed fixation patterns. In Experiment 2, the hippocampus was selectively activated for recollected stimuli, while no evidence of activation was observed in the hippocampus for strong familiarity of matched accuracy. Recollection also activated the parahippocampal cortex (PHC), while the adjacent perirhinal cortex (PRC) was actively engaged in response to strong familiarity (than to recollection). Activity in prefrontal and parietal areas differentiated familiarity and recollection in both the extent and the magnitude of activity they exhibited, while the dorsomedial thalamus showed selective familiarity-related activity, and the ventrolateral and anterior thalamus selective recollection-related activity. These findings are consistent with the view that the hippocampus and PRC play contrasting roles in supporting recollection and familiarity and that these differences are not a result of differences in memory strength. Overall, the combined pupil dilation, eye movement and fMRI data suggest the operation of recognition mechanisms drawing differentially on familiarity and recollection, whose neural bases are distinct within the MTL.

The pupillary response discriminates between subjective and objective familiarity and novelty

Abstract The pupil response discriminates between old and new stimuli, with old stimuli characterized by larger pupil dilation patterns than new stimuli. We sought to explore the cause of the pupil old/new effect and discount the effect of targetness, effort, recollection retrieval, and complexity of the recognition decision. Two experiments are reported in which the pupil response and the eye fixation patterns were measured, while participants identified novel and familiar object stimuli, in two separate tasks, emphasizing either novelty or familiarity detection. In Experiment 1, familiarity and novelty decisions were taken using a rating scale, while in Experiment 2 a simpler yes/no decision was used. In both experiments, we found that detection of target familiar stimuli resulted in greater pupil dilation than the detection of target novel stimuli, while the duration of the first fixation discriminated between familiar and novel stimuli as early as within 320 ms after stimulus onset. Importantly, the pupil response distinguished between the objective (during an earlier temporal component) and the subjective (during a later temporal component) status of the stimulus for misses and false alarms. In the light of previous findings, we suggest that the pupil and fixation old/new effects reflect the distinct neural and cognitive mechanisms involved in the familiarity and novelty decisions. The findings also have important implications for the use of pupil dilation and eye movement patterns to explore explicit and implicit memory processes.

Striatal and midbrain connectivity with the hippocampus selectively boosts memory for contextual novelty

The role of contextual expectation in processing familiar and novel stimuli was investigated in a series of experiments combining eye tracking, functional magnetic resonance imaging, and behavioral methods. An experimental paradigm emphasizing either familiarity or novelty detection at retrieval was used. The detection of unexpected familiar and novel stimuli, which were characterized by lower probability, engaged activity in midbrain and striatal structures. Specifically, detecting unexpected novel stimuli, relative to expected novel stimuli, produced greater activity in the substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area (SN/VTA), whereas the detection of unexpected familiar, relative to expected, familiar stimuli, elicited activity in the striatum/globus pallidus (GP). An effective connectivity analysis showed greater functional coupling between these two seed areas (GP and SN/VTA) and the hippocampus, for unexpected than for expected stimuli. Within this network of midbrain/striatal–hippocampal interactions two pathways are apparent; the direct SN–hippocampal pathway sensitive to unexpected novelty and the perirhinal–GP–hippocampal pathway sensitive to unexpected familiarity. In addition, increased eye fixations and pupil dilations also accompanied the detection of unexpected relative to expected familiar and novel stimuli, reflecting autonomic activity triggered by the functioning of these two pathways. Finally, subsequent memory for unexpected, relative to expected, familiar, and novel stimuli was characterized by enhanced recollection, but not familiarity, accuracy. Taken together, these findings suggest that a hippocampal–midbrain network, characterized by two distinct pathways, mediates encoding facilitation and most critically, that this facilitation is driven by contextual novelty, rather than by the absolute novelty of a stimulus. This contextually sensitive neural mechanism appears to elicit increased exploratory behavior, leading subsequently to greater recollection of the unexpected stimulus.

Familiarity and recollection in the medial temporal lobe.

Everyday experience informs us that there are two ways to recognize a stimulus as having been encountered on a previous occasion. In some cases, we experience a general feeling of memory, or familiarity, which indicates that the presented event has been experienced before. On other occasions, we

How do memory systems detect and respond to novelty

Highlights • Novelty is heterogeneous; heterogeneity driven by type of information that is novel.• Familiarity and novelty signals originate from non-overlapping brain regions.• These distinct signals combine to produce a relative familiarity signal.• Anterior hippocampal novelty-detection triggers neurotransmitter-mediated encoding.• Encoding contextual novelty is dopaminergic/noradrenergic while absolute novelty is cholinergic.

Amount, not strength of recollection, drives hippocampal activity: a problem for apparent word familiarity-related hippocampal activation

The role of the hippocampus in recollection and familiarity remains debated. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we explored whether hippocampal activity is modulated by increasing recollection confidence, increasing amount of recalled information, or both. We also investigated whether any hippocampal differences between recollection and familiarity relate to processing differences or amount of information in memory. Across two fMRI tasks, we separately compared brain responses to levels of confidence for cued word recall and word familiarity, respectively. Contrary to previous beliefs, increasing confidence/accuracy of cued recall of studied words did not increase hippocampal activity, when unconfounded by amount recollected. In contrast, additional recollection (i.e., recollecting more information than the word alone) increased hippocampal activity, although its accuracy matched that of word recall alone. Unlike cued word recall, increasing word familiarity accuracy did increase hippocampal activity linearly, although at an uncorrected level. This finding occurred although cued word recall and familiarity memory seemed matched with respect to information in memory. The detailed characteristics of these effects do not prove that word familiarity is exceptional in having hippocampal neural correlates. They suggest instead that participants fail to identify some aspects of recollection, misreporting it as familiarity, a problem with word‐like items that have strong and recallable semantic associates.