Striatal and midbrain connectivity with the hippocampus selectively boosts memory for contextual novelty.

The role of contextual expectation in processing familiar and novel stimuli was investigated in a series of experiments combining eye tracking, functional magnetic resonance imaging, and behavioral methods. An experimental paradigm emphasizing either familiarity or novelty detection at retrieval was used. The detection of unexpected familiar and novel stimuli, which were characterized by lower probability, engaged activity in midbrain and striatal structures. Specifically, detecting unexpected novel stimuli, relative to expected novel stimuli, produced greater activity in the substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area (SN/VTA), whereas the detection of unexpected familiar, relative to expected, familiar stimuli, elicited activity in the striatum/globus pallidus (GP). An effective connectivity analysis showed greater functional coupling between these two seed areas (GP and SN/VTA) and the hippocampus, for unexpected than for expected stimuli. Within this network of midbrain/striatal-hippocampal interactions two pathways are apparent; the direct SN-hippocampal pathway sensitive to unexpected novelty and the perirhinal-GP-hippocampal pathway sensitive to unexpected familiarity. In addition, increased eye fixations and pupil dilations also accompanied the detection of unexpected relative to expected familiar and novel stimuli, reflecting autonomic activity triggered by the functioning of these two pathways. Finally, subsequent memory for unexpected, relative to expected, familiar, and novel stimuli was characterized by enhanced recollection, but not familiarity, accuracy. Taken together, these findings suggest that a hippocampal-midbrain network, characterized by two distinct pathways, mediates encoding facilitation and most critically, that this facilitation is driven by contextual novelty, rather than by the absolute novelty of a stimulus. This contextually sensitive neural mechanism appears to elicit increased exploratory behavior, leading subsequently to greater recollection of the unexpected stimulus.

Two separate, but interacting, neural systems for familiarity and novelty detection: a dual-route mechanism.

It has long been assumed that familiarity- and novelty-related processes fall on a single continuum drawing on the same cognitive and neural mechanisms. The possibility that familiarity and novelty processing involve distinct neural networks was explored in a functional magnetic resonance imaging study (fMRI), in which familiarity and novelty judgments were made in contexts emphasizing either familiarity or novelty decisions. Parametrically modulated BOLD responses to familiarity and novelty strength were isolated in two separate, nonoverlapping brain networks. The novelty system involved brain regions along the ventral visual stream, the hippocampus, and the perirhinal and parahippocampal cortices. The familiarity system, on the other hand, involved the dorsomedial thalamic nucleus, and regions within the medial prefrontal cortex and the medial and lateral parietal cortex. Convergence of the two networks, treating familiarity and novelty as a single continuum was only found in a fronto-parietal network. Finally, the orbitomedial prefrontal cortex was found to be sensitive to reported strength/confidence, irrespective of stimulus' familiarity or novelty. This pattern of results suggests a dual-route mechanism supported by the existence of two distinct but interacting functional systems for familiarity and novelty. Overall, these findings challenge current assumptions regarding the neural systems that support the processing of novel and familiar information, and have important implications for research into the neural bases of recognition memory.

The pupillary response discriminates between subjective and objective familiarity and novelty.

The pupil response discriminates between old and new stimuli, with old stimuli characterized by larger pupil dilation patterns than new stimuli. We sought to explore the cause of the pupil old/new effect and discount the effect of targetness, effort, recollection retrieval, and complexity of the recognition decision. Two experiments are reported in which the pupil response and the eye fixation patterns were measured, while participants identified novel and familiar object stimuli, in two separate tasks, emphasizing either novelty or familiarity detection. In Experiment 1, familiarity and novelty decisions were taken using a rating scale, while in Experiment 2 a simpler yes/no decision was used. In both experiments, we found that detection of target familiar stimuli resulted in greater pupil dilation than the detection of target novel stimuli, while the duration of the first fixation discriminated between familiar and novel stimuli as early as within 320 ms after stimulus onset. Importantly, the pupil response distinguished between the objective (during an earlier temporal component) and the subjective (during a later temporal component) status of the stimulus for misses and false alarms. In the light of previous findings, we suggest that the pupil and fixation old/new effects reflect the distinct neural and cognitive mechanisms involved in the familiarity and novelty decisions. The findings also have important implications for the use of pupil dilation and eye movement patterns to explore explicit and implicit memory processes.

Familiarity and recollection produce distinct eye movement, pupil and medial temporal lobe responses when memory strength is matched.

Two experiments explored eye measures (fixations and pupil response patterns) and brain responses (BOLD) accompanying the recognition of visual object stimuli based on familiarity and recollection. In both experiments, the use of a modified remember/know procedure led to high confidence and matched accuracy levels characterising strong familiarity (F3) and recollection (R) responses. In Experiment 1, visual scanning behaviour at retrieval distinguished familiarity-based from recollection-based recognition. Recollection, relative to strength-matched familiarity, involved significantly larger pupil dilations and more dispersed fixation patterns. In Experiment 2, the hippocampus was selectively activated for recollected stimuli, while no evidence of activation was observed in the hippocampus for strong familiarity of matched accuracy. Recollection also activated the parahippocampal cortex (PHC), while the adjacent perirhinal cortex (PRC) was actively engaged in response to strong familiarity (than to recollection). Activity in prefrontal and parietal areas differentiated familiarity and recollection in both the extent and the magnitude of activity they exhibited, while the dorsomedial thalamus showed selective familiarity-related activity, and the ventrolateral and anterior thalamus selective recollection-related activity. These findings are consistent with the view that the hippocampus and PRC play contrasting roles in supporting recollection and familiarity and that these differences are not a result of differences in memory strength. Overall, the combined pupil dilation, eye movement and fMRI data suggest the operation of recognition mechanisms drawing differentially on familiarity and recollection, whose neural bases are distinct within the MTL.

Recognition memory strength is predicted by pupillary responses at encoding while fixation patterns distinguish recollection from familiarity.

Thirty-five healthy participants incidentally encoded a set of man-made and natural object pictures, while their pupil response and eye movements were recorded. At retrieval, studied and new stimuli were rated as novel, familiar (strong, moderate, or weak), or recollected. We found that both pupil response and fixation patterns at encoding predict later recognition memory strength. The extent of pupillary response accompanying incidental encoding was found to be predictive of subsequent memory. In addition, the number of fixations was also predictive of later recognition memory strength, suggesting that the accumulation of greater visual detail, even for single objects, is critical for the creation of a strong memory. Moreover, fixation patterns at encoding distinguished between recollection and familiarity at retrieval, with more dispersed fixations predicting familiarity and more clustered fixations predicting recollection. These data reveal close links between the autonomic control of pupil responses and eye movement patterns on the one hand and memory encoding on the other. Moreover, the data illustrate quantitative as well as qualitative differences in the incidental visual processing of stimuli, which are differentially predictive of the strength and the kind of memory experienced at recognition.