Cargando…

Deciding what is possible and impossible following hippocampal damage in humans

There is currently much debate about whether the precise role of the hippocampus in scene processing is predominantly constructive, perceptual, or mnemonic. Here, we developed a novel experimental paradigm designed to control for general perceptual and mnemonic demands, thus enabling us to specifica...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCormick, Cornelia, Rosenthal, Clive R., Miller, Thomas D., Maguire, Eleanor A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5324536/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27997994
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22694
_version_ 1782510222677377024
author McCormick, Cornelia
Rosenthal, Clive R.
Miller, Thomas D.
Maguire, Eleanor A.
author_facet McCormick, Cornelia
Rosenthal, Clive R.
Miller, Thomas D.
Maguire, Eleanor A.
author_sort McCormick, Cornelia
collection PubMed
description There is currently much debate about whether the precise role of the hippocampus in scene processing is predominantly constructive, perceptual, or mnemonic. Here, we developed a novel experimental paradigm designed to control for general perceptual and mnemonic demands, thus enabling us to specifically vary the requirement for constructive processing. We tested the ability of patients with selective bilateral hippocampal damage and matched control participants to detect either semantic (e.g., an elephant with butterflies for ears) or constructive (e.g., an endless staircase) violations in realistic images of scenes. Thus, scenes could be semantically or constructively ‘possible’ or ‘impossible’. Importantly, general perceptual and memory requirements were similar for both types of scene. We found that the patients performed comparably to control participants when deciding whether scenes were semantically possible or impossible, but were selectively impaired at judging if scenes were constructively possible or impossible. Post‐task debriefing indicated that control participants constructed flexible mental representations of the scenes in order to make constructive judgements, whereas the patients were more constrained and typically focused on specific fragments of the scenes, with little indication of having constructed internal scene models. These results suggest that one contribution the hippocampus makes to scene processing is to construct internal representations of spatially coherent scenes, which may be vital for modelling the world during both perception and memory recall. © 2016 The Authors. Hippocampus Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5324536
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53245362017-03-08 Deciding what is possible and impossible following hippocampal damage in humans McCormick, Cornelia Rosenthal, Clive R. Miller, Thomas D. Maguire, Eleanor A. Hippocampus Research Articles There is currently much debate about whether the precise role of the hippocampus in scene processing is predominantly constructive, perceptual, or mnemonic. Here, we developed a novel experimental paradigm designed to control for general perceptual and mnemonic demands, thus enabling us to specifically vary the requirement for constructive processing. We tested the ability of patients with selective bilateral hippocampal damage and matched control participants to detect either semantic (e.g., an elephant with butterflies for ears) or constructive (e.g., an endless staircase) violations in realistic images of scenes. Thus, scenes could be semantically or constructively ‘possible’ or ‘impossible’. Importantly, general perceptual and memory requirements were similar for both types of scene. We found that the patients performed comparably to control participants when deciding whether scenes were semantically possible or impossible, but were selectively impaired at judging if scenes were constructively possible or impossible. Post‐task debriefing indicated that control participants constructed flexible mental representations of the scenes in order to make constructive judgements, whereas the patients were more constrained and typically focused on specific fragments of the scenes, with little indication of having constructed internal scene models. These results suggest that one contribution the hippocampus makes to scene processing is to construct internal representations of spatially coherent scenes, which may be vital for modelling the world during both perception and memory recall. © 2016 The Authors. Hippocampus Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-01-07 2017-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5324536/ /pubmed/27997994 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22694 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Hippocampus Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
McCormick, Cornelia
Rosenthal, Clive R.
Miller, Thomas D.
Maguire, Eleanor A.
Deciding what is possible and impossible following hippocampal damage in humans
title Deciding what is possible and impossible following hippocampal damage in humans
title_full Deciding what is possible and impossible following hippocampal damage in humans
title_fullStr Deciding what is possible and impossible following hippocampal damage in humans
title_full_unstemmed Deciding what is possible and impossible following hippocampal damage in humans
title_short Deciding what is possible and impossible following hippocampal damage in humans
title_sort deciding what is possible and impossible following hippocampal damage in humans
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5324536/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27997994
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22694
work_keys_str_mv AT mccormickcornelia decidingwhatispossibleandimpossiblefollowinghippocampaldamageinhumans
AT rosenthalcliver decidingwhatispossibleandimpossiblefollowinghippocampaldamageinhumans
AT millerthomasd decidingwhatispossibleandimpossiblefollowinghippocampaldamageinhumans
AT maguireeleanora decidingwhatispossibleandimpossiblefollowinghippocampaldamageinhumans