Remembering and imagining alternative versions of the personal past
Introduction
Remembering the personal past, or autobiographical memory (AM), is closely related to our ability to imagine hypothetical episodes that might occur in the future (i.e., episodic simulation; Schacter et al., 2008; Szpunar et al., 2014a) or how events could have turned out differently in the past (i.e., episodic counterfactual simulation; De Brigard et al., 2013). According to the constructive episodic simulation hypothesis (Schacter and Addis, 2007, 2009) both remembering and imagining are supported by a constructive episodic memory system that involves access to stored episodic details and the ability to flexibly recombine details from past episodes when memories are reconstructed or when imagining a hypothetical event. Supporting this hypothesis, AM retrieval and episodic simulation recruit a similar pattern of brain regions referred to as a core network, which includes medial temporal lobe, medial prefrontal cortex (PFC), posterior cingulate, retrosplenial cortex, and lateral temporal and parietal cortices (Addis et al., 2007, Benoit and Schacter, 2015, Buckner and Carroll, 2007, Spreng et al., 2008, Szpunar et al., 2015, Szpunar et al., 2014b). Episodic simulation, however, typically involves stronger neural recruitment in some of these core network areas, as well as additional recruitment of other brain regions attributed to greater constructive demands in recombining details when imagining a novel event (Benoit and Schacter, 2015, Schacter and Addis, 2009, Schacter et al., 2012). We and others (Hardt et al., 2010, Howe and Derbish, 2010, Newman and Lindsay, 2009, Schacter, 2012, Schacter and Addis, 2007; Schacter et al., 2011) have argued that the adaptive nature of memory, which enables the ability to simulate novel events, also makes it vulnerable to modification (e.g., Carpenter and Schacter, 2017; Schacter et al., 2017, St Jacques et al., 2013; St. Jacques and Schacter, 2013). Yet, to our knowledge, previous functional neuroimaging studies have not fully considered how reshaping the veridical past may also place similar demands on constructive processes as episodic simulation of hypothetical events. Here, we used an fMRI adaptation paradigm (Barron et al., 2016, Grill-Spector et al., 2006, Larsson et al., 2016, Szpunar et al., 2014a, Szpunar et al., 2014b) to isolate neural regions sensitive to the creation of alternative versions of the past during AM retrieval when adopting novel visual perspectives and episodic counterfactual simulations.
As noted above, episodic simulation typically involves greater neural recruitment than AM retrieval. For example, some studies have shown greater recruitment of the hippocampus when imagining future events (Schacter and Addis, 2009, Schacter et al., 2017), and stronger coupling with the frontoparietal control network when planning plausible future events (Gerlach et al., 2014b, Spreng et al., 2010). Although episodic simulations of the future and the past have been shown to recruit similar core network regions (e.g., Addis et al., 2009), there are some reported differences. For example, episodic counterfactual thinking preferentially engages posterior dorsal medial PFC (Van Hoeck et al., 2012). Further, De Brigard et al. (2013) found that probable or likely episodic counterfactual simulations, in contrast to unlikely episodic counterfactual simulations, recruited a more similar pattern of neural activity to that associated with AM retrieval. A recent meta-analysis by Benoit and Schacter (2015) revealed that episodic simulations, including counterfactual thinking, involved greater engagement of core network areas than AM retrieval within the left inferior parietal cortex, dorsolateral PFC and hippocampus, as well as additional recruitment of precuneus and other brain regions overlapping with the frontoparietal control network. Such differences in the neural regions between episodic simulation and AM retrieval are thought to reflect additional constructive demands involved in recombining disparate episodic details to form novel coherent scenarios (for discussion see Schacter and Addis, 2009; Schacter et al., 2017, 2015). Importantly, however, previous research comparing episodic simulation and memory retrieval has focused on AM conditions that placed minimal demands on constructive processes. For example, participants are typically instructed to recall memories in accurate detail and/or in similar ways to which they were originally experienced. It is well known that AMs can be reconstructed in multiple ways (Hirst and Echterhoff, 2012, Marsh, 2007, Pasupathi, 2001). Yet it is not well understood how the different ways we can retrieve memories influence the neural mechanisms typically associated with additional recombination demands during episodic simulation.
One of the most prominent ways we reconstruct AMs is by retrieving them from multiple egocentric or self-centered visual perspectives. Although we typically experience the world from our own eyes, when we retrieve AMs we can flexibly shift our first person viewpoint from inside to outside the body, seeing ourselves in the memory (Nigro and Neisser, 1983, Rice and Rubin, 2009). Retrieving AMs from visual perspectives that were never experienced is thought to reflect reconstructive processes that can reshape memories (Butler et al., 2016, McDermott et al., 2016, Robinson and Swanson, 1993). Supporting this idea, adopting a particular visual perspective influences the content and phenomenological properties of AM retrieval (Berntsen and Rubin, 2006, McIsaac and Eich, 2002, Robinson and Swanson, 1993) and recruits different neural processes (Eich et al., 2009, n et al., 2014, Grol et al., 2017). We recently provided evidence concerning the neural mechanisms that contribute to changes in memories online and during subsequent memory retrieval when retrieving AMs from novel visual perspectives (St. Jacques et al., 2017). In this functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, participants were asked to retrieve AMs during scanning while repeatedly adopting an identical own eyes perspective or shifting to a novel observer perspective. We found that adopting a novel observer perspective reduced subjective ratings of emotional intensity online, and also biased the natural visual perspective memories were subsequently retrieved from. Neural recruitment in the precuneus, bilateral inferior parietal cortex, and lateral PFC supported the ability to adopt a novel versus an identical visual perspective during AM retrieval. However, only the precuneus supported online and subsequent changes in AMs attributable to constructing memories from a novel visual perspective.
In the current fMRI study, we examined whether increasing constructive demands on the veridical past by requiring participants to retrieve personal memories from novel visual perspectives would evoke neural activity in regions associated with constructive processing and that are typically more active for episodic simulation than remembering. Participants generated the titles of AMs in a pre-scanning session. One week later, they repeatedly retrieved or created an episodic counterfactual event while adopting an own eyes or observer visual perspective. We used an fMRI adaptation approach to isolate neural regions that were sensitive to adopting a novel visual perspective during AM retrieval compared to adopting a novel episodic counterfactual simulation. We predicted that the precuneus, inferior parietal cortex and lateral PFC would be sensitive to construction of alternative versions of the past for both AM retrieval and episodic simulation.
Section snippets
Participants
In total, there were 39 participants who gave written informed consent. Two participants were excluded due to technical issues. Additionally, eight participants were excluded from the analysis because of excessive movement during fMRI scanning (i.e., maximum absolute movements greater than 2 mm, more than 5 movements greater than 0.5 mm, and/or a slice signal-to-noise ratio less than 99).1
Behavioral results
There were no differences in the subjective ratings of memories assigned to the autobiographical retrieval or episodic counterfactual simulation conditions (for means and SD see Table 1).
To examine subjective ratings and reaction times during session 2, we conducted a 2 (Visual Perspective: Own Eyes, Observer) × 2 (Task: Retrieval, Simulation) × 3 (Trial: Initial, Identical Repetition, Novel Repetition) repeated measures ANOVA, separately for difficulty and emotional intensity ratings (for means
Discussion
Our findings reveal for the first time the neural regions that are sensitive to constructing alternative versions of the veridical and counterfactual past. Using an fMRI adaptation design, we show that similar neural regions that contribute to the creation of novel episodic counterfactual simulations support the reconstruction of memories from novel visual perspectives. Importantly, this pattern also overlapped with neural regions that are typically more engaged during episodic counterfactual
Acknowledgments
We thank Haley Dodds, Jennifer Morris, and Justin Kim for assistance with participant recruitment and testing. This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH060941 (DLS). Conceptualization, PLS and DLS; Methodology, PLS, ACC, and KKS; Investigation, PLS, ACC; Formal Analysis, PLS; Writing-Original Draft, PLS; Writing-Review & Editing, PLS, KKS, ACC, and DLS; Visualization, PLS; Project Administration, PLS; Funding Acquisition, DLS.
References (67)
- et al.
Characterizing cerebellar activity during autobiographical memory retrieval: ALE and functional connectivity investigations
Neuropsychologia
(2016) - et al.
Constructive episodic simulation of the future and the past: distinct subsystems of a core brain network mediate imagining and remembering
Neuropsychologia
(2009) - et al.
Remembering the past and imagining the future: common and distinct neural substrates during event construction and elaboration
Neuropsychologia
(2007) - et al.
Contributions of episodic retrieval and mentalizing to autobiographical thought: evidence from functional neuroimaging, resting-state connectivity, and fMRI meta-analyses
Neuroimage
(2014) - et al.
Specifying the core network supporting episodic simulation and episodic memory by activation likelihood estimation
Neuropsychologia
(2015) - et al.
Similarities and differences between parietal and frontal patients in autobiographical and constructed experience tasks
Neuropsychologia
(2010) - et al.
Self-projection and the brain
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(2007) - et al.
Visual imagery in autobiographical memory: the role of repeated retrieval in shifting perspective
Conscious Cogn.
(2016) - et al.
Functional neuroimaging of autobiographical memory
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(2007) - et al.
Remembering what could have happened: neural correlates of episodic counterfactual thinking
Neuropsychologia
(2013)
Influence of outcome valence in the subjective experience of episodic past, future, and counterfactual thinking
Conscious Cogn.
Neural activity associated with self, other, and object-based counterfactual thinking
Neuroimage
Future thinking in Parkinson's disease: an executive function?
Neuropsychologia
Neural systems mediating field and observer memories
Neuropsychologia
Repetition and the brain: neural models of stimulus-specific effects
Trends Cogn. Sci.
Mental imagery of positive and neutral memories: a fMRI study comparing field perspective imagery to observer perspective imagery
Brain Cogn.
On the susceptibility of adaptive memory to false memory illusions
Cognition
fMRI adaptation revisited
Cortex
Point of view in personal memories
Cogn. Psychol.
I can see it both ways: first- and third-person visual perspectives at retrieval
Conscious Cogn.
The future of memory: remembering, imagining, and the brain
Neuron
Episodic future thinking and episodic counterfactual thinking: intersections between memory and decisions
Neurobiol. Learn. Mem.
Memory distortion: an adaptive perspective
Trends Cogn. Sci.
Distinct prefrontal cortex activity associated with item memory and source memory for visual shapes
Cogn. Brain Res.
Default network activity, coupled with the frontoparietal control network, supports goal-directed cognition
Neuroimage
Shifting visual perspective during retrieval shapes autobiographical memories
Neuroimage
Cortical midline involvement in autobiographical memory
Neuroimage
The functional neuroanatomy of autobiographical memory: a meta-analysis
Neuropsychologia
Cluster-extent based thresholding in fMRI analyses: pitfalls and recommendations
Neuroimage
Category-specific enhancement of retrieval due to field perspective
Memory
Repetition suppression: a means to index neural representations using BOLD?
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci.
Ventromedial prefrontal cortex supports affective future simulation by integrating distributed knowledge
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Emotion and vantage point in autobiographical memory
Cogn. Emot.
Cited by (44)
How visual perspective influences the spatiotemporal dynamics of autobiographical memory retrieval
2020, CortexCitation Excerpt :Structural neuroimaging studies have shown a positive relationship between precuneus volume and the tendency to adopt an own eyes perspective during autobiographical retrieval (Freton et al., 2014; Hebscher et al., 2018). However, functional neuroimaging studies are less consistent—with some studies finding similar involvement for own eyes and observer perspectives (Eich, Nelson, Leghari, & Handy, 2009; St. Jacques et al., 2018) and others finding greater involvement for observer than own perspectives (Grol et al., 2017). One reason for this inconsistency may be that the precuneus is involved in both the representation and manipulation of mental images that support the adoption of own eyes and observer perspectives alike (for review see Byrne, Becker, & Burgess, 2007; Cavanna & Trimble, 2006).
Differential contribution of anterior and posterior midline regions during mental simulation of counterfactual and perspective shifts in autobiographical memories
2020, NeuroImageCitation Excerpt :While the constructive episodic simulation hypothesis suggests a general shared network supporting this mental simulation of past events, the precise neural mechanisms underlying the generation of diverse reconstructive episodic simulations remains unclear, particularly those that directly manipulate event outcomes to be better or worse than they actually were. For instance, in their evaluation of both perspective shifts and alternative simulations, St. Jacques et al. (2018) only focused on simulations of alternate events which could have still led to the same affective outcome. This kind of mental simulation, whereby only the antecedent is modified but the consequent (i.e., outcome) is kept fixed, is known in the psychological literature as semifactual thoughts (Barker, 1991), and are usually captured by “even if” statements – e.g., if a picnic was ruined because of rain, one might think even if it had not rained, the picnic would still have been ruined because of the strong wind.
What Are Memories For? The Hippocampus Bridges Past Experience with Future Decisions
2020, Trends in Cognitive Sciences