Neurobiology of Memory: Declarative vs Nondeclarative Memory - Coursework Example

The neurobiology of memory: The difference between declarative and nondeclarative memory Name Institution Date The neurobiology of memory Introduction Converging evidence, coming from human neuroimaging and animal experiments studies, has resulted in the agreement stating that memory is actually not unitary in character, but better described through multiple systems which serve various forms of memory. Further research of memory’s neurobiological basis extensively supports the difference between the two kinds of long-term systems of memory: declarative and nondeclarative. Whereas declarative knowledge is basically described as flexible memory for previous facts and events, nondeclarative memory is described by comparatively inflexible knowledge for procedural and routine behaviours (Reber, 2008). The principal distinction involving the two systems of memory lies within the differential ability to recall information that is already stored. Whereas declarative memory is dependent on conscious recollection, memory that is nondeclarative is expressed by performance and its accessibility is not via conscious faculties (Pepeu, 2010). This paper shows how the investigation of various memory systems as well as the mechanisms of relations is not just significant for what it discloses about the brain’s development and adaptive function, but also for its medical applications with respect to neurobiology of memory. Declarative and nondeclarative memory Declarative memory is the ability to consciously recall the past events and it relies on the medial temporal lobe’s integrity which compromises of the hippocampus, the subicular complex and the dentate gyrus, in addition to the entorhinal, parahippocampal and perirhinal cortices that lie along the neighbouring parahippocampal gyrus (LaVoie & Cobia, 2007). Recognition is one of the examples that is most broadly studied for declarative memory. Recognition is the capacity to judge a team that is recently encountered as having been previously presented. Recognition memory is broadly perceived as comprising of two elements: familiarity and recollection (Pepeu, 2010). Familiarity simply involves recognizing that a thing was presented, devoid of having accessible any extra information concerning the episode of learning; recollection entails remembering particular contextual details concerning a previous learning episode (Keisler & Shadmehr, 2010). Interest concerning this distinction significantly increased when there was a proposal of a neuroanatomical basis about the two processes. The proposal suggested that recollection is dependent on the hippocampus, while familiarity relies on the neighbouring perirhinal cortex (Kern et al, 2010). From that time, this idea has been elaborated on, and it has turned out to be the ground for the plan and evaluation of a good experimental work deal. On the other hand, other formulations have been advanced as well concerning the characteristic of recognition memory as well as its anatomical foundations, but an agreement has not emerged yet (Rubin, 2006). Studies of impairment of memory Recognition and recall deficits: The most basic means to assess the divided-labour description of the function of the medial temporal lobe is to analyse the extent to which recognition and recall are impaired in individuals who have confined hippocampus damage (Binder & Desai, 2011). Recall is usually considered to depend exclusively on recollection, while recognition is considered to rely on both familiarity and recollection (Saywell & Taylor, 2008). For that reason, if recollection is selectively supported by hippocampus, then damage to the hippocampal should cause more impairment to recall than recognition. Even though some single-case studies have actually been advanced in favour of this suggestion, group studies offered powerful evidence in its opposition. A study was performed with fifty six patients who suffered a brief episode of hypoxia and were considered to have lesions confined to the hippocampus, although radiological information was not accessible (Saywell & Taylor, 2008). Even though recall was reported initially to be more damaged compared to recognition, this conclusion relied completely on the abnormal performance of a solitary one of the fifty five control subjects. Another study involved 6 patients who had evidence damage of the bilateral hippocampal and normal volumes of the parahippocampal gyrus. Again, recognition and recall were equally impaired, an outcome that needs not to be seen if recollection is entirely reliant on the hippocampus (Saywell & Taylor, 2008). A different study involved 3 patients who had damage restricted to the hippocampus and 2 patients with extended damage to the parahippocampal gyrus. Recognition performance among controls and patients was initially equated through manipulation of exposure time of participants to the remembered items. In these conditions, patients’ scores of recall corresponded with the ones of controls across 3 dissimilar intervals of retention (thirty seconds, two minutes, and ten minutes): meaning, recognition and recall were correspondingly impaired. This outcome strongly implies that hippocampus is significant for both familiarity and recollection (Keisler & Shadmehr, 2010). Neuroimaging and single-unit recording Further evidence that is based on the neuroanatomical basis of familiarity and recollection is provided by investigations that have generally neural activity within the perirhinal cortex and hippocampus in the course of learning as well as retrieval. For these studies, functional MRI (fMRI) and single-unit neurophysiology are the techniques that have been utilized. The first study was to establish the neural activity within the hippocampus. There exists strong back up for the thought that hippocampus has a considerable responsibility in associative recollection (Tendolkar et al, 2007). During a present study, the action of single hippocampal neurons was accounted by the use of depth electrodes among epileptic patients that were being assessed for surgery (Frick & Korol, 2011). The patients observed a series of 12 visual images, all of which was put in 1 of 4 quadrants on the screen of the computer. Approximately thirty minutes afterwards, old-new decisions were made by the patients for the twelve investigated images and twelve recent images and were moreover asked to formulate a source memory judgment, particularly, recollecting the spatial area (the quadrant) where there was presentation of the image. Two types of neurons were classified within the hippocampus: neurons which signalled uniqueness by raising their firing towards old items (different hippocampal neurons have actually been established that reduce their firing in reaction to either old or new items) (Frick & Korol, 2011). Essentially, the neurons which reacted to previous occurrence demonstrated elevated firing on trials also when there was failure of the spatial location’s recollection. Additionally, there was increased firing across experimental sessions when performance of spatial recollection was no superior than chance. Hence, successful spatial location recollection was not needed for hippocampal neurons in order to demonstrate recognition of item. These results offer immediate evidence that hippocampus is actually involved in recognition of item even when there is absence of recollection for a major task’s feature (Geldmacher, 2009). With regards to the activity of the neurons in the perirhinal cortex, investigations in monkeys imply that single neurons within the inferotemporal cortex (an area that encompasses perirhinal cortex) react regularly towards a visual stimulus once it is primarily presented and afterwards less often as the stimulus turns out to be more familiar. Various fMRI studies indicate related effect in the perirhinal cortex of the human. Particularly, retrieval activity is inversely associated to strength of the memory, meaning, activity is powerful for original items whereas weakest for previous items which are properly recognized (Tendolkar et al, 2007). One study showed that similar relationship involving neural activity and memory strength was established within the anterior hippocampus. These outcomes are steady with the suggestion that perirhinal cortex (and maybe hippocampus included) responds to familiarity of the item, which may be signalled partly by a decreased novelty response (Graham et al, 2006). There is also a possibility that the novelty detection is different from familiarity detection. Actually, one may possibly understand that familiarity is generally signalled by a raised rate of neuronal firing that is linked to previous stimuli, as was seen for neurons within the human hippocampus, while novelty detection is associated with a raised rate of firing to new stimuli, just like is generally observed for perirhinal cortex’s neurons (Vilberg & Rugg, 2007). There exist fewer consensuses concerning the role of the perirhinal cortex in recollection. Proof against this idea mainly comes from studies of fMRI. For instance, at encoding, activity within the perirhinal cortex is frequently no distinct for items which will afterwards be powerfully remembered compared to the items that will afterwards be faintly remembered but on the other hand exceeds the action linked to items which will afterwards not be remembered (Wilson & Linster, 2008). These results have frequently been considered to imply that perirhinal action influences the succeeding item’s familiarity nevertheless does not further add up to its afterwards recollection (Vilberg & Rugg, 2007). On the other hand, as illustrated above, these investigations confound strength of memory with the absence or presence of recollection. A different understanding of such results argue that the connection involving strength of memory and activity within the perirhinal cortex is actually nonlinear, (implying that the signal of fMRI is moderately insensitive to memory strength changes at the scale’s high end), not that there is no involvement of the perirhinal cortex in the process of recollection (Squire et al, 2007). Amygdala’s involvement in memory storage For years there exists controversy about the issue of whether amygdala has any involvement in memory. Broad proof from various laboratories has presently resolved this universal controversy. Investigations of the impacts of amygdala’s lesions in humans and animals leave little uncertainty that amygdala has involvement in mediating memory that has been affectively influenced (Rosenbaum et al, 2011). Nevertheless, there remains significant controversy about the particular amygdala’s role in memory that is affectively influenced. The lesion studies’ findings imply that the amygdala might facilitate the creation of stimulus-reward relationships and might be a region of neuroplasticity that mediates aversive learning (McGaugh et al, 1996). Another research using different experimental methods offers extensive further proof that there is involvement of amygdala in memory. Nonetheless, the findings imply a rather different analysis of the amygdala’s role in memory that is affectively influenced. The findings also imply that amygdala is involved in the regulation of the consolidation or storage of information within other regions of the brain (McGaugh et al, 1996). Basal ganglia’s learning and memory functions Even though the basal ganglia of the human have been associated in motor behaviour, generally, it is established that behavioural roles of the subcortical collection of compositions are not completely motoric in character. Presently, extensive evidence demonstrate basal ganglia’s role, specifically the dorsal striatum, in memory and learning. One outstanding hypothesis shows that this region of brain mediates a type of meaning where stimulus-response (S-R) habits or associations are incrementally obtained. This hypothesis is supported through provision of various neurobehavioral investigations in various mammalian species, such as monkeys, rats, and humans (Parkard & Knowlton, 2002). In monkeys and rats, confined brain lesion as well as pharmacological methods has been applied to analyse basal ganglia’s role in S-R learning. Among humans, examination of patients who have neurodegenerative illnesses that involve the basal ganglia, together with research with the use of brain neuroimaging methods, also offer proof of basal ganglia’s role in habit learning (Eichenbaum et al, 2007). Majority of these investigations have dissociated basal ganglia’s role in S-R learning from the ones of a declarative or cognitive medial temporal lobes (MTL) memory system where the primary component is the hippocampus (Kan et al, 2007). Evidence implies that in the course of learning, basal ganglia together with the MTL memory systems are simultaneously activated and that in a number of learning conditions competitive interference exists involving these two schemes (Parkard & Knowlton, 2002). Conclusion In conclusion, this paper has discussed the neurobiology of memory with respect to the difference between declarative and nondeclarative memory. Nondeclarative and declarative memory differ in the sense that declarative memory means the recollection of events and facts whereas nondeclarative memory, also referred to as procedural memory, is the capacity to carry out learned activities or skills. Declarative memory is able to be declared or expressed in accordance with information whereas nondeclarative memory is able to. Nondeclarative and declarative memories are both significant parts of an individual’s long-term memory, since one need to apply various different skills and facts during any particular day. A disorder or deficiency in whichever type of memory can severely slow down an individual’s capacity to carry out a task or to operate normally in daily life. Reference Eichenbaum, H., Yonelinas. & Ranganath, C. (2007). The Medial Temporal Lobe and Recognition Memory. Annu Rev Neurosci, 30, 123-52. McGaugh, J., Cahill, L. & Roozendaal, B. (1996). Involvement of the amygdala in memory storage: Interaction with other brain systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, 93, 13508-13514. Packard, M. G. & Knowlton, B. J. (2002). Learning and Memory Functions of the Basal Ganglia. Annu. Rev. Neurosci, 25, 563-93. Vilberg, K. L. & Rugg, M. D. (2007). Dissociation of the neural correlates of recognition memory according to familiarity, recollection, and amount of recollected information. Neuropsychologia 45, 2216–2225. Kan, I. P., Giovanello, K. S., Schnyer, D. M., Makris, N. & Verfaellie, M. (2007). Role of the medial temporal lobes in relational memory: neuropsychological evidence from a cued recognition paradigm. Neuropsychologia 45, 2589–2597. Tendolkar, I. et al. (2007). Probing the neural correlates of associative memory formation: a parametrically analyzed event-related functional MRI study. Brain Res. 1142, 159–168. Squire, L. R., Wixted, J. T. & Clark, R. E. (2007). Recognition memory and the medial temporal lobe: a new perspective. Nature Reviews/ Neuroscience, 8. LaVoie, D. J., & Cobia, D. J. (2007). Recollecting, recognizing, and other acts of remembering: an overview of human memory. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy : Jnpt, 31, 3, 135-44. Reber, P. J. (2008). Cognitive Neuroscience of Declarative and Nondeclarative Memory. Advances in Psychology, 139, 113-123. Keisler, A., & Shadmehr, R. (2010). A shared resource between declarative memory and motor memory. The Journal of Neuroscience : the Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 30, 44, 14817-23. Rosenbaum, R. S., Carson, N., Abraham, N., Bowles, B., Kwan, D., Kohler, S., Svoboda, E. & Richards, B. (2011). Impaired event memory and recollection in a case of developmental amnesia. Neurocase, 17, 5, 394-409. Rubin, D. (2006). The Basic-Systems Model of Episodic Memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 4, 277-311. Saywell, N., & Taylor, D. (2008). The role of the cerebellum in procedural learning-Are there implications for physiotherapists' clinical practice?. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 24, 5, 321-328. Graham, K. S., Scahill, V. L., Hornberger, M., Barense, M. D., Lee, A. C., Bussey, T. J., & Saksida, L. M. (2006). Abnormal categorization and perceptual learning in patients with hippocampal damage. The Journal of Neuroscience : the Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 26, 29, 7547-54. Kern, R. S., Hartzell, A. M., Izaguirre, B., & Hamilton, A. H. (2010). Declarative and nondeclarative memory in schizophrenia: What is impaired? What is spared?. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32, 9, 1017-27. Pepeu, G. (2010). Know yourself: The neurobiology of memory. Human Evolution, 25, 229-238. Binder, J. R., & Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 11, 527-36. Wilson, D. A., & Linster, C. (2008). Neurobiology of a simple memory. Journal of Neurophysiology, 100, 1, 2-7. Geldmacher, D. S. (2009). The Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. Journal of Neuroophthalmology, 29, 3, 257. Frick, K. M., & Korol, D. L. (2011). Introduction to the special issue of Neurobiology of Learning and Memory on memory impairment and disease. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 96, 4, 505-6. Read More

Studies of impairment of memory Recognition and recall deficits: The most basic means to assess the divided-labour description of the function of the medial temporal lobe is to analyse the extent to which recognition and recall are impaired in individuals who have confined hippocampus damage (Binder & Desai, 2011). Recall is usually considered to depend exclusively on recollection, while recognition is considered to rely on both familiarity and recollection (Saywell & Taylor, 2008). For that reason, if recollection is selectively supported by hippocampus, then damage to the hippocampal should cause more impairment to recall than recognition.

Even though some single-case studies have actually been advanced in favour of this suggestion, group studies offered powerful evidence in its opposition. A study was performed with fifty six patients who suffered a brief episode of hypoxia and were considered to have lesions confined to the hippocampus, although radiological information was not accessible (Saywell & Taylor, 2008). Even though recall was reported initially to be more damaged compared to recognition, this conclusion relied completely on the abnormal performance of a solitary one of the fifty five control subjects.

Another study involved 6 patients who had evidence damage of the bilateral hippocampal and normal volumes of the parahippocampal gyrus. Again, recognition and recall were equally impaired, an outcome that needs not to be seen if recollection is entirely reliant on the hippocampus (Saywell & Taylor, 2008). A different study involved 3 patients who had damage restricted to the hippocampus and 2 patients with extended damage to the parahippocampal gyrus. Recognition performance among controls and patients was initially equated through manipulation of exposure time of participants to the remembered items.

In these conditions, patients’ scores of recall corresponded with the ones of controls across 3 dissimilar intervals of retention (thirty seconds, two minutes, and ten minutes): meaning, recognition and recall were correspondingly impaired. This outcome strongly implies that hippocampus is significant for both familiarity and recollection (Keisler & Shadmehr, 2010). Neuroimaging and single-unit recording Further evidence that is based on the neuroanatomical basis of familiarity and recollection is provided by investigations that have generally neural activity within the perirhinal cortex and hippocampus in the course of learning as well as retrieval.

For these studies, functional MRI (fMRI) and single-unit neurophysiology are the techniques that have been utilized. The first study was to establish the neural activity within the hippocampus. There exists strong back up for the thought that hippocampus has a considerable responsibility in associative recollection (Tendolkar et al, 2007). During a present study, the action of single hippocampal neurons was accounted by the use of depth electrodes among epileptic patients that were being assessed for surgery (Frick & Korol, 2011).

The patients observed a series of 12 visual images, all of which was put in 1 of 4 quadrants on the screen of the computer. Approximately thirty minutes afterwards, old-new decisions were made by the patients for the twelve investigated images and twelve recent images and were moreover asked to formulate a source memory judgment, particularly, recollecting the spatial area (the quadrant) where there was presentation of the image. Two types of neurons were classified within the hippocampus: neurons which signalled uniqueness by raising their firing towards old items (different hippocampal neurons have actually been established that reduce their firing in reaction to either old or new items) (Frick & Korol, 2011).

Essentially, the neurons which reacted to previous occurrence demonstrated elevated firing on trials also when there was failure of the spatial location’s recollection. Additionally, there was increased firing across experimental sessions when performance of spatial recollection was no superior than chance.

Read More