Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29408218›Full record

ReviewNeuroscience letters2018

How do memory systems detect and respond to novelty?

Alex Kafkas, Daniela Montaldi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuroscience letters, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Prior novelty invigorates future mesolimbic target detection.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  9. Unexpected Events Resist Directed Forgetting.Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Stability through plasticity: Finding robust memories through representational drift.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  15. Prior Novelty Invigorates Future Mesolimbic Target Detection.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alex KafkasMemory Research Unit, School of Biological Sciences, Division of Neuroscience & Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, UK. Electronic address: alexandros.kafkas@manchester.ac.uk.
Daniela MontaldiMemory Research Unit, School of Biological Sciences, Division of Neuroscience & Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The efficiency of the memory system lies not only in its readiness to detect and retrieve old stimuli but also in its ability to detect and integrate novel information. In this review, we discuss recent evidence suggesting that the neural substrates sensitive to detecting familiarity and novelty are not entirely overlapping. Instead, these partially distinct familiarity and novelty signals are integrated to support recognition memory decisions. We propose here that the mediodorsal thalamus is critical for familiarity detection, and for combining novelty signals from the medial temporal lobe cortex with the relative familiarity outputs of computations performed in other cortical structures, especially the prefrontal cortex. Importantly, we argue that the anterior hippocampus has a prominent role in detecting novelty and in communicating this with midbrain and striatal structures. We argue that different types of novelty (absolute or contextual) engage different neurotransmitter systems that converge in the hippocampus. We suggest that contextual or unexpected novelty triggers dopaminergic hippocampal-midbrain coupling and noradrenergic-mediated pupil dilation. In contrast, absolute novelty triggers cholinergic-mediated hippocampal encoding accompanied by diminished pupil dilation. These two, distinct hippocampal encoding mechanisms both lead to later recollection but are sensitive to different types of novelty. We conclude that this neurotransmitter-mediated hippocampal encoding establishes the hippocampus in an encoding mode that briefly prevents the engagement of retrieval.

Indexed as

AcetylcholineDopamineHippocampusHumansNeocortexNerve NetNorepinephrineRecognition, PsychologyThalamusAcetylcholineDopamineNorepinephrineAcetylcholineDopamineFamiliarityHippocampusNorepinephrineNovelty

Identifiers

PMID29408218
PMCPMC6565889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.