ArticleBrain research2023
Neural distinctiveness and reinstatement of hippocampal representations support unitization for associations.
Article in Brain research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatially unitized associations occupy an intermediate position along the item-to-association continuum in older adults.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- The Otter and the Cleaver: Exploring the Neural Underpinnings of Unitization Using the Gestalt Principle of Proximity.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2025Article
- Examining the neural basis of unitization: A review.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2024Review
- Neural distinctiveness and discriminability underlying unitization and associative memory in aging.Aging brain · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.