Limits...
Memory, Imagination, and Predicting the Future: A Common Brain Mechanism?

Mullally SL, Maguire EA - Neuroscientist (2013)

Bottom Line: On the face of it, memory, imagination, and prediction seem to be distinct cognitive functions.However, metacognitive, cognitive, neuropsychological, and neuroimaging evidence is emerging that they are not, suggesting intimate links in their underlying processes.Here, we explore these empirical findings and the evolving theoretical frameworks that seek to explain how a common neural system supports our recollection of times past, imagination, and our attempts to predict the future.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The phenomenon of boundary extension. (A) Healthy participants viewed the picture on the left for 15 seconds. It was then removed and they were required to immediately draw the picture from memory. An example drawing is shown on the right. It is obvious that the participant included much more background than was presented in the picture seconds earlier, thus exhibiting boundary extension (BE; from Intraub and others 1996; reprinted with permission from Elsevier). (B) BE has two phases. When we see a picture of a scene (top panel), we automatically extrapolate beyond the physical edges of that scene (second panel). This active extension of the scene is the “BE effect.” When the scene is no longer present, the extended content and context beyond the boundaries become incorporated into our internal representation of the scene (third panel). Thus, in phase 2, when exactly the same picture is presented at test (fourth panel), we compare the now extended internal representation to the test picture, leading to a perception that the test picture is “closer” than the original study picture, even though they are identical. This memory error is the “BE error,” (from Chadwick and others 2012; reprinted with permission from Elsevier).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2 - License 3
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4232337&req=5

fig7-1073858413495091: The phenomenon of boundary extension. (A) Healthy participants viewed the picture on the left for 15 seconds. It was then removed and they were required to immediately draw the picture from memory. An example drawing is shown on the right. It is obvious that the participant included much more background than was presented in the picture seconds earlier, thus exhibiting boundary extension (BE; from Intraub and others 1996; reprinted with permission from Elsevier). (B) BE has two phases. When we see a picture of a scene (top panel), we automatically extrapolate beyond the physical edges of that scene (second panel). This active extension of the scene is the “BE effect.” When the scene is no longer present, the extended content and context beyond the boundaries become incorporated into our internal representation of the scene (third panel). Thus, in phase 2, when exactly the same picture is presented at test (fourth panel), we compare the now extended internal representation to the test picture, leading to a perception that the test picture is “closer” than the original study picture, even though they are identical. This memory error is the “BE error,” (from Chadwick and others 2012; reprinted with permission from Elsevier).

Mentions: Further recent evidence appears to place scene construction at the heart of hippocampal processing. Boundary extension (BE; Intraub and Richardson 1989; Fig. 7A) is a ubiquitous cognitive phenomenon where we erroneously remember seeing more of a scene than was present in the sensory input, and occurs because when we view a scene, we implicitly extrapolate beyond the borders to form an extended representation of that scene. In the absence of the original visual input, this extended scene is misremembered instead of the original input, causing a memory error. BE is a robust and consistent effect found in adults (Intraub and Richardson 1989; Seamon and others 2002), children (Seamon and others 2002) and even babies (Quinn and Intraub 2007). Of note, BE only occurs in relation to scenes and not single isolated objects (Gottesman and Intraub 2002), a dissociation that mirrors the imagination dichotomy observed in amnesic patients (Hassabis and others 2007b).


Memory, Imagination, and Predicting the Future: A Common Brain Mechanism?

Mullally SL, Maguire EA - Neuroscientist (2013)

The phenomenon of boundary extension. (A) Healthy participants viewed the picture on the left for 15 seconds. It was then removed and they were required to immediately draw the picture from memory. An example drawing is shown on the right. It is obvious that the participant included much more background than was presented in the picture seconds earlier, thus exhibiting boundary extension (BE; from Intraub and others 1996; reprinted with permission from Elsevier). (B) BE has two phases. When we see a picture of a scene (top panel), we automatically extrapolate beyond the physical edges of that scene (second panel). This active extension of the scene is the “BE effect.” When the scene is no longer present, the extended content and context beyond the boundaries become incorporated into our internal representation of the scene (third panel). Thus, in phase 2, when exactly the same picture is presented at test (fourth panel), we compare the now extended internal representation to the test picture, leading to a perception that the test picture is “closer” than the original study picture, even though they are identical. This memory error is the “BE error,” (from Chadwick and others 2012; reprinted with permission from Elsevier).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2 - License 3
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4232337&req=5

fig7-1073858413495091: The phenomenon of boundary extension. (A) Healthy participants viewed the picture on the left for 15 seconds. It was then removed and they were required to immediately draw the picture from memory. An example drawing is shown on the right. It is obvious that the participant included much more background than was presented in the picture seconds earlier, thus exhibiting boundary extension (BE; from Intraub and others 1996; reprinted with permission from Elsevier). (B) BE has two phases. When we see a picture of a scene (top panel), we automatically extrapolate beyond the physical edges of that scene (second panel). This active extension of the scene is the “BE effect.” When the scene is no longer present, the extended content and context beyond the boundaries become incorporated into our internal representation of the scene (third panel). Thus, in phase 2, when exactly the same picture is presented at test (fourth panel), we compare the now extended internal representation to the test picture, leading to a perception that the test picture is “closer” than the original study picture, even though they are identical. This memory error is the “BE error,” (from Chadwick and others 2012; reprinted with permission from Elsevier).
Mentions: Further recent evidence appears to place scene construction at the heart of hippocampal processing. Boundary extension (BE; Intraub and Richardson 1989; Fig. 7A) is a ubiquitous cognitive phenomenon where we erroneously remember seeing more of a scene than was present in the sensory input, and occurs because when we view a scene, we implicitly extrapolate beyond the borders to form an extended representation of that scene. In the absence of the original visual input, this extended scene is misremembered instead of the original input, causing a memory error. BE is a robust and consistent effect found in adults (Intraub and Richardson 1989; Seamon and others 2002), children (Seamon and others 2002) and even babies (Quinn and Intraub 2007). Of note, BE only occurs in relation to scenes and not single isolated objects (Gottesman and Intraub 2002), a dissociation that mirrors the imagination dichotomy observed in amnesic patients (Hassabis and others 2007b).

Bottom Line: On the face of it, memory, imagination, and prediction seem to be distinct cognitive functions.However, metacognitive, cognitive, neuropsychological, and neuroimaging evidence is emerging that they are not, suggesting intimate links in their underlying processes.Here, we explore these empirical findings and the evolving theoretical frameworks that seek to explain how a common neural system supports our recollection of times past, imagination, and our attempts to predict the future.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus