A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Neural Correlates of Direct vs. Generative Retrieval of Episodic Autobiographical Memory.

IF 5.4 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES
Sarah Daviddi, Gülara Yaya, Marco Sperduti, Valerio Santangelo
{"title":"A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Neural Correlates of Direct vs. Generative Retrieval of Episodic Autobiographical Memory.","authors":"Sarah Daviddi, Gülara Yaya, Marco Sperduti, Valerio Santangelo","doi":"10.1007/s11065-024-09653-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is a widespread view that episodic autobiographical memories (EAMs) can be retrieved \"directly\" or \"generatively.\" However, the neural mechanisms underlying these retrieval modes have been overlooked in the literature, likely due to the difficulty of operationalizing the two notions. Here, we propose to operationalize direct vs. generative retrieval based on memory cue specificity, in terms of EAMs elicited by specific/personalized vs. generic memory cues, respectively. After completing a literature search in four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science) in 2023, we performed a multilevel kernel density analysis (MKDA) to directly compare activations from 32 neuroimaging studies investigating these two EAM retrieval modalities with the above memory cue distinction. Both direct and generative retrieval showed common activations of the left hippocampus, bilateral angular gyrus, and posterior cingulate cortex. The direct vs. generative comparison revealed the activation of a brain circuit comprising the anterior and posterior cortical midline, the left angular gyrus, and the right cerebellum. Previous literature suggests that these regions play a role in self-referential processes, indicating that direct access to EAMs may be supported by the recruitment of self-related neural resources that facilitate the retrieval of personal memories. Conversely, generative vs. direct MKDA revealed the activation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. As this region has been previously associated with schematic memory, its involvement may emphasize the \"constructive\" nature of generative EAM retrieval. Overall, the current findings extend the previous literature by providing the neurobiological foundation of direct and generative EAM retrieval.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-024-09653-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is a widespread view that episodic autobiographical memories (EAMs) can be retrieved "directly" or "generatively." However, the neural mechanisms underlying these retrieval modes have been overlooked in the literature, likely due to the difficulty of operationalizing the two notions. Here, we propose to operationalize direct vs. generative retrieval based on memory cue specificity, in terms of EAMs elicited by specific/personalized vs. generic memory cues, respectively. After completing a literature search in four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science) in 2023, we performed a multilevel kernel density analysis (MKDA) to directly compare activations from 32 neuroimaging studies investigating these two EAM retrieval modalities with the above memory cue distinction. Both direct and generative retrieval showed common activations of the left hippocampus, bilateral angular gyrus, and posterior cingulate cortex. The direct vs. generative comparison revealed the activation of a brain circuit comprising the anterior and posterior cortical midline, the left angular gyrus, and the right cerebellum. Previous literature suggests that these regions play a role in self-referential processes, indicating that direct access to EAMs may be supported by the recruitment of self-related neural resources that facilitate the retrieval of personal memories. Conversely, generative vs. direct MKDA revealed the activation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. As this region has been previously associated with schematic memory, its involvement may emphasize the "constructive" nature of generative EAM retrieval. Overall, the current findings extend the previous literature by providing the neurobiological foundation of direct and generative EAM retrieval.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信