Memory in time: electrophysiological comparison between reality filtering and temporal order judgment.

Orbitofrontal reality filtering (ORF) denotes a little known but vital memory control mechanism, expressed at 200-300ms after stimulus presentation, that allows one to sense whether evoked memories (thoughts) refer to present reality and can be acted upon, or not. Its failure induces reality confusion evident in confabulations that patients act upon and disorientation. In what way ORF differs from temporal order judgment (TOJ), that is, the conscious knowledge about when something happened in the past, has never been explored. Here we used evoked potential analysis to compare ORF and TOJ within a combined experimental task and within a comparable time frame, close to the experienced present. Seventeen healthy human subjects performed an experiment using continuous recognition tasks that combined the challenges of ORF and TOJ. We found that the two mechanisms dissociated behaviorally: subjects were markedly slower and less accurate in TOJ than ORF. Both mechanisms evoked similar potentials at 240-280ms, when ORF normally occurs. However, they rapidly dissociated in terms of amplitude differences and electrical source from 310 to 360ms and again from 530 to 560ms. We conclude that the task of consciously ordering memories in the immediate past (TOJ) is effortful and slow in contrast to sensing memories' relation with the present (ORF). Both functions invoke similar early electrocortical processes which then rapidly dissociate and engage different brain areas. The results are consistent with the different consequences of the two mechanisms' dysfunction: while failure of ORF has a known clinical manifestation (reality confusion as evident in confabulation and disorientation), the failure of TOJ, as tested here, has no such known clinical correlate.

Comparison of high gamma electrocorticography and fMRI with electrocortical stimulation for localization of somatosensory and language cortex.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the contribution of electrocortical stimulation (ECS), induced high gamma electrocorticography (hgECoG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) for the localization of somatosensory and language cortex. METHODS: 23 Epileptic patients with subdural electrodes underwent a protocol of somatosensory stimulation and/or an auditory semantic decision task. 14 Patients did the same protocol with fMRI prior to implantation. RESULTS: ECS resulted in the identification of thumb somatosensory cortex in 12/16 patients. Taking ECS as a gold standard, hgECoG and fMRI identified 53.6/33% of true positive and 4/12% of false positive contacts, respectively. The hgECoG false positive sites were all found in the hand area of the post-central gyrus. ECS localized language-related sites in 7/12 patients with hgECoG and fMRI showing 50/64% of true positive and 8/23% of false positive contacts, respectively. All but one of the hgECoG/fMRI false positive contacts were located in plausible language areas. Four patients showed post-surgical impairments: the resection included the sites positively indicated by ECS, hgECoG and fMRI in 3 patients and a positive hgECoG site in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: HgECoG and fMRI provide additional localization information in patients who cannot sufficiently collaborate during ECS. SIGNIFICANCE: HgECoG and fMRI make the cortical mapping procedure more flexible not only by identifying priority cortical sites for ECS or when ECS is not feasible, but also when ECS does not provide any result.