Dissociating retrieval success from incidental encoding activity during emotional memory retrieval, in the medial temporal lobe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The memory-enhancing effect of emotion has been linked to the engagement of emotion- and memory-related medial temporal lobe (MTL) regions (amygdala-AMY; hippocampus-HC; parahippocampus-PHC), during both encoding and retrieval. However, recognition tasks used to investigate the neural correlates of retrieval make it difficult to distinguish MTL engagement linked to retrieval success (RS) from that linked to incidental encoding success (ES) during retrieval. This issue has been investigated for retrieval of non-emotional memories, but not for emotional memory retrieval. To address this, we used event-related functional MRI in conjunction with an emotional distraction and two episodic memory tasks (one testing memory for distracter items and the other testing memory for new/lure items presented in the first memory task). This paradigm allowed for dissociation of MTL activity specifically linked to RS from that linked to both RS and incidental ES during retrieval. There were two novel findings regarding the neural correlates of emotional memory retrieval. First, greater emotional RS was identified bilaterally in AMY, HC, and PHC. However, AMY activity was most impacted when accounting for ES activity, as only RS activity in left AMY was dissociated from ES activity during retrieval, whereas portions of HC and PHC showing greater emotional RS were largely uninvolved in ES. Second, an earlier and more anteriorly spread response (left AMY and bilateral HC, PHC) was linked to greater emotional RS activity, whereas a later and more posteriorly localized response (right posterior PHC) was linked to greater neutral RS activity. These findings shed light on MTL mechanisms subserving the memory-enhancing effect of emotion at retrieval.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".