Numerous studies indicate the importance of the hippocampus to temporal order retrieval. However, behavioral studies suggest that there are different ways to retrieve temporal order information from encoded sequences, one involving an associative strategy (retrieving associations using neighboring items in a list) and another involving a recency strategy (determining which of two items came first). It remains unresolved, however, whether both strategies recruit the hippocampus or only associative strategies, consistent with the hippocampus's role in relational processing. To address this, we developed a paradigm in which we dissociated associative versus recency-based retrieval, involving the same stimulus presentation during retrieval. Associative retrieval involved an increase in RT (and decrease in performance) with greater distances between intervals, consistent with the need to retrieve intervening associations. Recency-based retrieval involved an increase in RT (and decrease in performance) with shorter distances between intervals, suggesting the use of a strength-based coding mechanism to retrieve information. We employed fMRI to determine the neural basis of the different strategies. Both strategies showed significant levels of hippocampal activation and connectivity that did not differ between tasks. In contrast, both univariate and connectivity pattern analyses revealed differences in extrahippocampal areas such as parietal and frontal cortices. A covariate analysis suggested that differences could not be explained by task difficulty alone. Together, these findings suggest that the hippocampus plays a role in both forms of temporal order retrieval, with neocortical networks mediating the different cognitive demands for associative versus recency-based temporal order retrieval.

The unique circuitry of the hippocampus is thought to support the encoding and retrieval of context-rich episodic memories. Given the neuroanatomical differences between the hippocampal subfields, determining their functional roles during representation of contextual features in humans is an important yet unaddressed research goal. Prior studies suggest that, during the acquisition of information from the environment, the dentate gyrus (DG) and CA3 subfields rapidly differentiate competing contextual representations, whereas CA1, situated downstream from CA3/DG, is believed to process input from both CA3 and neocortical areas via the temporoammonic pathway. To further explore the functionality of these roles, we used high-resolution fMRI to investigate multivariate response patterns within CA3/DG and CA1 during the processing of spatial context. While undergoing functional imaging, participants viewed videos of virtual environments and were asked to discriminate between similar yet geometrically distinct cities. We manipulated a single contextual feature by systematically morphing the city configurations from one common geometric shape to another, resulting in four cities—two distinctively shaped cities and two intermediate “morphed” cities. Pattern similarity within CA3/DG scaled with geometric changes to the environment. In contrast, CA1 pattern similarity, as well as interregional pattern similarity between CA1 and parahippocampal cortex, increased for the regularly shaped configurations compared with the morphs. These results highlight different roles for subfields CA3/DG and CA1 in memory and advance our understanding of how subcomponents of the human hippocampal circuit represent contextual features of memories.

Traditionally, emotional stimuli have been thought to be automatically processed via a bottom–up automatic “capture of attention” mechanism. Recently, this view has been challenged by evidence that emotion processing depends on the availability of attentional resources. Although these two views are not mutually exclusive, direct evidence reconciling them is lacking. One limitation of previous investigations supporting the traditional or competing views is that they have not systematically investigated the impact of emotional charge of task-irrelevant distraction in conjunction with manipulations of attentional demands. Using event-related fMRI, we investigated the nature of emotion–cognition interactions in a perceptual discrimination task with emotional distraction by manipulating both the emotional charge of the distracting information and the demands of the main task. Our findings show that emotion processing is both automatic and modulated by attention, but emotion and attention were only found to interact when finer assessments of emotional charge (comparison of most vs. least emotional conditions) were considered along with an effective manipulation of processing load (high vs. low). The study also identified brain regions reflecting the detrimental impact of emotional distraction on performance as well as regions involved in coping with such distraction. Activity in the dorsomedial pFC and ventrolateral pFC was linked to a detrimental impact of emotional distraction, whereas the dorsal ACC and lateral occipital cortex were involved in helping with emotional distraction. These findings demonstrate that task-irrelevant emotion processing is subjective to both the emotional content of distraction and the level of attentional demand.

Although the medial-temporal lobes (MTL), PFC, and parietal cortex are considered primary nodes in the episodic memory network, there is much debate regarding the contributions of MTL, PFC, and parietal subregions to recollection versus familiarity (dual-process theory) and the feasibility of accounts on the basis of a single memory strength process (strength theory). To investigate these issues, the current fMRI study measured activity during retrieval of memories that differed quantitatively in terms of strength (high vs. low-confidence trials) and qualitatively in terms of recollection versus familiarity (source vs. item memory tasks). Support for each theory varied depending on which node of the episodic memory network was considered. Results from MTL best fit a dual-process account, as a dissociation was found between a right hippocampal region showing high-confidence activity during the source memory task and bilateral rhinal regions showing high-confidence activity during the item memory task. Within PFC, several left-lateralized regions showed greater activity for source than item memory, consistent with recollective orienting, whereas a right-lateralized ventrolateral area showed low-confidence activity in both tasks, consistent with monitoring processes. Parietal findings were generally consistent with strength theory, with dorsal areas showing low-confidence activity and ventral areas showing high-confidence activity in both tasks. This dissociation fits with an attentional account of parietal functions during episodic retrieval. The results suggest that both dual-process and strength theories are partly correct, highlighting the need for an integrated model that links to more general cognitive theories to account for observed neural activity during episodic memory retrieval.

The specific role of different parietal regions to episodic retrieval is a topic of intense debate. According to the Attention to Memory (AtoM) model, dorsal parietal cortex (DPC) mediates top–down attention processes guided by retrieval goals, whereas ventral parietal cortex (VPC) mediates bottom–up attention processes captured by the retrieval output or the retrieval cue. This model also hypothesizes that the attentional functions of DPC and VPC are similar for memory and perception. To investigate this last hypothesis, we scanned participants with event-related fMRI whereas they performed memory and perception tasks, each comprising an orienting phase (top–down attention) and a detection phase (bottom–up attention). The study yielded two main findings. First, consistent with the AtoM model, orienting-related activity for memory and perception overlapped in DPC, whereas detection-related activity for memory and perception overlapped in VPC. The DPC overlap was greater in the left intraparietal sulcus, and the VPC overlap in the left TPJ. Around overlapping areas, there were differences in the spatial distribution of memory and perception activations, which were consistent with trends reported in the literature. Second, both DPC and VPC showed stronger connectivity with medial-temporal lobe during the memory task and with visual cortex during the perception task. These findings suggest that, during memory tasks, some parietal regions mediate similar attentional control processes to those involved in perception tasks (orienting in DPC vs. detection in VPC), although on different types of information (mnemonic vs. sensory).