Corrigendum to "Neural distinctiveness and discriminability underlying unitization and associative memory in aging" [Aging Brain 4 (2023) 100097].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.nbas.2023.100097.].

Neural distinctiveness and discriminability underlying unitization and associative memory in aging.

Previous work has suggested unitized pairs behave as a single unit and more critically, are processed neurally different than those of associative memories. The current works examines the neural differences between unitization and non-unitized memory using fMRI and multivoxel analyses. Specifically, we examined the differences across face-occupation pairings as a function of whether the pairing was viewed as a person performing the given job (unitized binding) or a person saying they knew someone who had a particular job (non-unitized binding). The results show that at encoding and retrieval, the angular gyrus can discriminate between unitized and non-unitized target trials. Additionally, during encoding, the medial temporal lobe (hippocampus and perirhinal cortex), frontal parietal regions (angular gyrus and medial frontal gyrus) and visual regions (middle occipital cortex) exhibit distinct neural patterns to recollected unitized and non-unitized targets. Furthermore, the perirhinal cortex and medial frontal gyrus show greater neural similarity within subsequently recollected unitized trials compared to non-unitized trials. We conclude that an encoding based strategy to elicit unitization can produce greater associative memory compared to non-unitized trials in older adults. Additionally, when unitized trials are subsequently recollected in the perirhinal cortex older adults show greater neural similarity within unitized trials compared to non-unitized trials.

Neural distinctiveness and reinstatement of hippocampal representations support unitization for associations.

The medial temporal lobe (MTL) is critical to associative memory success, yet not all types of associations may be processed in a similar manner within MTL subregions. In particular, previous work suggests intra- and inter-item associations not only exhibit differences in overall rates of recollection, but also recruit different MTL subregions. Whereas intra-item associations, akin to unitization, take advantage of associations between within-item features, inter-item associations form links across discrete items. The current work examines the neural differences between these two types of associations using fMRI and multivoxel analyses. Specifically, the current study examines differences across face-occupation as a function of whether the pairing was viewed as a person performing the given job (intra-item binding) or a person saying they knew someone who had a particular job (inter-item binding). The results show that at encoding, successfully recollected neural patterns related to intra- and inter-item associations are distinct from one another in the hippocampus, parahippocampal and perirhinal cortex. Additionally, the two trial types are reinstated distinctly such that inter-item trials have higher neural reinstatement from encoding to retrieval compared to intra-item trials in the hippocampus. We conclude that intra- and inter- associative pairs may utilize similar neural regions that represent patterns of activation differentially at encoding. However, to reinstate information to the same degree (i.e., subsequently successfully recollected) inter-item associations, that are all encoded in the same manner, may be reinstated more similarly compared to intra-item associations that are encoded by imagining pairs differently and occupation specific. This may indicate that intra-item associations promote more efficient reinstatement.