skip to main content

Title: Preparation for upcoming attentional states in the hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex
At any given moment, humans are bombarded with a constant stream of new information. But the brain can take in only a fraction of that information at once. So how does the brain decide what to pay attention to and what to ignore? Many laboratory studies of attention avoid this issue by simply telling participants what to attend to. But in daily life, people rarely receive instructions like that. Instead people must often rely on past experiences to guide their attention. When cycling close to home, for example, a person knows to watch out for the blind junction at the top of the hill and for the large pothole just around the corner. Günseli and Aly set out to bridge the gap between laboratory studies of attention and real-world experience by asking healthy volunteers to perform two versions of a task while lying inside a brain scanner. The task involved looking at pictures of rooms with different shapes. Each room also contained a different painting. In one version of the task, the volunteers were told to pay attention to either the paintings or to the room shapes. In the other version, the volunteers had to use previously memorized cues to work out for themselves whether they should focus on the paintings or on the shapes. The brain scans showed that two areas of the brain with roles in memory – the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex – were involved in the task. Notably, both areas increased their activity when the volunteers used memory to guide their attention, compared to when they received instructions telling them what to focus on. Moreover, patterns of activity within the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex contained information about what the participants were about to focus on next – even before volunteers saw the particular picture that they were supposed to pay attention to. In the hippocampus, this was particularly the case when the volunteers based their decisions on memory. These results reveal a key way in which humans leverage memories of past experiences to help optimize future behavior. Understanding this process could shed light on why memory impairments make it harder for people to adjust their behavior to achieve specific goals.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
Author(s) / Creator(s):
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Everyday experience requires processing external signals from the world around us and internal information retrieved from memory. To do both, the brain must fluctuate between states that are optimized for external versus internal attention. Here, we focus on the hippocampus as a region that may serve at the interface between these forms of attention and ask how it switches between prioritizing sensory signals from the external world versus internal signals related to memories and thoughts. Pharmacological, computational, and animal studies have identified input from the cholinergic basal forebrain as important for biasing the hippocampus toward processing external information, whereas complementary research suggests the dorsal attention network (DAN) may aid in allocating attentional resources toward accessing internal information. We therefore tested the hypothesis that the basal forebrain and DAN drive the hippocampus toward external and internal attention, respectively. We used data from 29 human participants (17 female) who completed two attention tasks during fMRI. One task (memory-guided) required proportionally more internal attention, and proportionally less external attention, than the other (explicitly instructed). We discovered that background functional connectivity between the basal forebrain and hippocampus was stronger during the explicitly instructed versus memory-guided task. In contrast, DAN–hippocampus background connectivity was stronger during the memory-guided versus explicitly instructed task. Finally, the strength of DAN–hippocampus background connectivity was correlated with performance on the memory-guided but not explicitly instructed task. Together, these results provide evidence that the basal forebrain and DAN may modulate the hippocampus to switch between external and internal attention.

    SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTHow does the brain balance the need to pay attention to internal thoughts and external sensations? We focused on the human hippocampus, a region that may serve at the interface between internal and external attention, and asked how its functional connectivity varies based on attentional states. The hippocampus was more strongly coupled with the cholinergic basal forebrain when attentional states were guided by the external world rather than retrieved memories. This pattern flipped for functional connectivity between the hippocampus and dorsal attention network, which was higher for attention tasks that were guided by memory rather than external cues. Together, these findings show that distinct networks in the brain may modulate the hippocampus to switch between external and internal attention.

    more » « less
  2. The function of long-term memory is not just to reminisce about the past, but also to make predictions that help us behave appropriately and efficiently in the future. This predictive function of memory provides a new perspective on the classic question from memory research of why we remember some things but not others. If prediction is a key outcome of memory, then the extent to which an item generates a prediction signifies that this information already exists in memory and need not be encoded. We tested this principle using human intracranial EEG as a time-resolved method to quantify prediction in visual cortex during a statistical learning task and link the strength of these predictions to subsequent episodic memory behavior. Epilepsy patients of both sexes viewed rapid streams of scenes, some of which contained regularities that allowed the category of the next scene to be predicted. We verified that statistical learning occurred using neural frequency tagging and measured category prediction with multivariate pattern analysis. Although neural prediction was robust overall, this was driven entirely by predictive items that were subsequently forgotten. Such interference provides a mechanism by which prediction can regulate memory formation to prioritize encoding of information that could help learn new predictive relationships.

    SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTWhen faced with a new experience, we are rarely at a loss for what to do. Rather, because many aspects of the world are stable over time, we rely on past experiences to generate expectations that guide behavior. Here we show that these expectations during a new experience come at the expense of memory for that experience. From intracranial recordings of visual cortex, we decoded what humans expected to see next in a series of photographs based on patterns of neural activity. Photographs that generated strong neural expectations were more likely to be forgotten in a later behavioral memory test. Prioritizing the storage of experiences that currently lead to weak expectations could help improve these expectations in future encounters.

    more » « less
  3. Abstract: Jury notetaking can be controversial despite evidence suggesting benefits for recall and understanding. Research on note taking has historically focused on the deliberation process. Yet, little research explores the notes themselves. We developed a 10-item coding guide to explore what jurors take notes on (e.g., simple vs. complex evidence) and how they take notes (e.g., gist vs. specific representation). In general, jurors made gist representations of simple and complex information in their notes. This finding is consistent with Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995) and suggests notes may serve as a general memory aid, rather than verbatim representation. Summary: The practice of jury notetaking in the courtroom is often contested. Some states allow it (e.g., Nebraska: State v. Kipf, 1990), while others forbid it (e.g., Louisiana: La. Code of Crim. Proc., Art. 793). Some argue notes may serve as a memory aid, increase juror confidence during deliberation, and help jurors engage in the trial (Hannaford & Munsterman, 2001; Heuer & Penrod, 1988, 1994). Others argue notetaking may distract jurors from listening to evidence, that juror notes may be given undue weight, and that those who took notes may dictate the deliberation process (Dann, Hans, & Kaye, 2005). While research has evaluated the efficacy of juror notes on evidence comprehension, little work has explored the specific content of juror notes. In a similar project on which we build, Dann, Hans, and Kaye (2005) found jurors took on average 270 words of notes each with 85% including references to jury instructions in their notes. In the present study we use a content analysis approach to examine how jurors take notes about simple and complex evidence. We were particularly interested in how jurors captured gist and specific (verbatim) information in their notes as they have different implications for information recall during deliberation. According to Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995), people extract “gist” or qualitative meaning from information, and also exact, verbatim representations. Although both are important for helping people make well-informed judgments, gist-based understandings are purported to be even more important than verbatim understanding (Reyna, 2008; Reyna & Brainer, 2007). As such, it could be useful to examine how laypeople represent information in their notes during deliberation of evidence. Methods Prior to watching a 45-minute mock bank robbery trial, jurors were given a pen and notepad and instructed they were permitted to take notes. The evidence included testimony from the defendant, witnesses, and expert witnesses from prosecution and defense. Expert testimony described complex mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence. The present analysis consists of pilot data representing 2,733 lines of notes from 52 randomly-selected jurors across 41 mock juries. Our final sample for presentation at AP-LS will consist of all 391 juror notes in our dataset. Based on previous research exploring jury note taking as well as our specific interest in gist vs. specific encoding of information, we developed a coding guide to quantify juror note-taking behaviors. Four researchers independently coded a subset of notes. Coders achieved acceptable interrater reliability [(Cronbach’s Alpha = .80-.92) on all variables across 20% of cases]. Prior to AP-LS, we will link juror notes with how they discuss scientific and non-scientific evidence during jury deliberation. Coding Note length. Before coding for content, coders counted lines of text. Each notepad line with at minimum one complete word was coded as a line of text. Gist information vs. Specific information. Any line referencing evidence was coded as gist or specific. We coded gist information as information that did not contain any specific details but summarized the meaning of the evidence (e.g., “bad, not many people excluded”). Specific information was coded as such if it contained a verbatim descriptive (e.g.,“<1 of people could be excluded”). We further coded whether this information was related to non-scientific evidence or related to the scientific DNA evidence. Mentions of DNA Evidence vs. Other Evidence. We were specifically interested in whether jurors mentioned the DNA evidence and how they captured complex evidence. When DNA evidence was mention we coded the content of the DNA reference. Mentions of the characteristics of mtDNA vs nDNA, the DNA match process or who could be excluded, heteroplasmy, references to database size, and other references were coded. Reliability. When referencing DNA evidence, we were interested in whether jurors mentioned the evidence reliability. Any specific mention of reliability of DNA evidence was noted (e.g., “MT DNA is not as powerful, more prone to error”). Expert Qualification. Finally, we were interested in whether jurors noted an expert’s qualifications. All references were coded (e.g., “Forensic analyst”). Results On average, jurors took 53 lines of notes (range: 3-137 lines). Most (83%) mentioned jury instructions before moving on to case specific information. The majority of references to evidence were gist references (54%) focusing on non-scientific evidence and scientific expert testimony equally (50%). When jurors encoded information using specific references (46%), they referenced non-scientific evidence and expert testimony equally as well (50%). Thirty-three percent of lines were devoted to expert testimony with every juror including at least one line. References to the DNA evidence were usually focused on who could be excluded from the FBIs database (43%), followed by references to differences between mtDNA vs nDNA (30%), and mentions of the size of the database (11%). Less frequently, references to DNA evidence focused on heteroplasmy (5%). Of those references that did not fit into a coding category (11%), most focused on the DNA extraction process, general information about DNA, and the uniqueness of DNA. We further coded references to DNA reliability (15%) as well as references to specific statistical information (14%). Finally, 40% of jurors made reference to an expert’s qualifications. Conclusion Jury note content analysis can reveal important information about how jurors capture trial information (e.g., gist vs verbatim), what evidence they consider important, and what they consider relevant and irrelevant. In our case, it appeared jurors largely created gist representations of information that focused equally on non-scientific evidence and scientific expert testimony. This finding suggests note taking may serve not only to represent information verbatim, but also and perhaps mostly as a general memory aid summarizing the meaning of evidence. Further, jurors’ references to evidence tended to be equally focused on the non-scientific evidence and the scientifically complex DNA evidence. This observation suggests jurors may attend just as much to non-scientific evidence as they to do complex scientific evidence in cases involving complicated evidence – an observation that might inform future work on understanding how jurors interpret evidence in cases with complex information. Learning objective: Participants will be able to describe emerging evidence about how jurors take notes during trial. 
    more » « less
  4. The medial temporal lobe (MTL) is traditionally considered to be a system that is specialized for long-term memory. Recent work has challenged this notion by demonstrating that this region can contribute to many domains of cognition beyond long-term memory, including perception and attention. One potential reason why the MTL (and hippocampus specifically) contributes broadly to cognition is that it contains relational representations—representations of multidimensional features of experience and their unique relationship to one another—that are useful in many different cognitive domains. Here, we explore the hypothesis that the hippocampus/MTL plays a critical role in attention and perception via relational representations. We compared human participants with MTL damage to healthy age- and education-matched individuals on attention tasks that varied in relational processing demands. On each trial, participants viewed two images (rooms with paintings). On “similar room” trials, they judged whether the rooms had the same spatial layout from a different perspective. On “similar art” trials, they judged whether the paintings could have been painted by the same artist. On “identical” trials, participants simply had to detect identical paintings or rooms. MTL lesion patients were significantly and selectively impaired on the similar room task. This work provides further evidence that the hippocampus/MTL plays a ubiquitous role in cognition by virtue of its relational and spatial representations and highlights its important contributions to rapid perceptual processes that benefit from attention. 
    more » « less
  5. A plain, blank canvas does not look very beautiful; to make it aesthetically appealing requires adding structure and complexity. But how much structure is best? In other words, what is the relationship between beauty and complexity? It has long been hypothesized that complexity and beauty meet at a “sweet spot,” such that the most beautiful images are neither too simple nor too complex. Here, we take a novel experimental approach to this question, using an information-theoretic approach to object representation based on an internal “skeletal” structure. We algorithmically generated a library of two-dimensional polygons and manipulated their complexity by gradually smoothing out their features—essentially decreasing the amount of information in the objects. We then stylized these shapes as “paintings” by rendering them with artistic strokes, and “mounted” them on framed canvases hung in a virtual room. Participants were shown pairs of these mounted shapes (which possessed similar structures but varied in skeletal complexity) and chose which shape looked best by previewing each painting on the canvas. Experiment 1 revealed a “Goldilocks” effect: participants preferred paintings that were neither too simple nor too complex, such that moderately complex shapes were chosen as the most attractive paintings. Experiment 2 isolated the role of complexity per se: when the same shapes were scrambled (such that their structural complexity was undermined, while other visual features were preserved), the Goldilocks effect was dramatically diminished. These findings suggest a quadratic relationship between aesthetics and complexity in ways that go beyond previous measures of each and demonstrate the utility of information-theoretic approaches for exploring high-level aspects of visual experience.

    more » « less