Article | Published:

Visual recognition memory, manifested as long-term habituation, requires synaptic plasticity in V1

Nature Neuroscience volume 18, pages 262271 (2015) | Download Citation

  • An Erratum to this article was published on 26 May 2015

This article has been updated


Familiarity with stimuli that bring neither reward nor punishment, manifested through behavioral habituation, enables organisms to detect novelty and devote cognition to important elements of the environment. Here we describe in mice a form of long-term behavioral habituation to visual grating stimuli that is selective for stimulus orientation. Orientation-selective habituation (OSH) can be observed both in exploratory behavior in an open arena and in a stereotyped motor response to visual stimuli in head-restrained mice. We found that the latter behavioral response, termed a 'vidget', requires V1. Parallel electrophysiological recordings in V1 revealed that plasticity, in the form of stimulus-selective response potentiation (SRP), occurred in layer 4 of V1 as OSH developed. Local manipulations of V1 that prevented and reversed electrophysiological modifications likewise prevented and reversed memory demonstrated behaviorally. These findings suggest that a form of long-term visual recognition memory is stored via synaptic plasticity in primary sensory cortex.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Change history

  • 09 February 2015

    In the version of this article initially published, there were quotation marks around "encoded" in the first paragraph and around "encode" in the last paragraph of the main text; these have been deleted. The second sentence of the third paragraph read "habituated in a stimulus-selective manner in V1 as SRP developed"; "in V1" has been deleted. The Figure 7d legend began "Failure of SRP induction"; the correct text is "Selective failure of SRP expression." The sixth paragraph of the Discussion began "Behavioral manifestation of the vidget required V1"; the correct text is "Behavioral expression of the vidget requires V1." The eighth paragraph of the Discussion included "first, a 'response' pathway that directly mediates the vidget and does not undergo long-term modification, and second, a 'learning' pathway"; "first," and "second," have been deleted. The errors have been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.


  1. 1.

    Mass action in cerebral function. Science 73, 245–254 (1931).

  2. 2.

    et al. Instructive effect of visual experience in mouse visual cortex. Neuron 51, 339–349 (2006).

  3. 3.

    & Visual experience induces long-term potentiation in the primary visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 30, 16304–16313 (2010).

  4. 4.

    , & The visual physiology of the wild type mouse determined with pattern VEPs. Vision Res. 39, 3071–3081 (1999).

  5. 5.

    et al. Independent visual threshold measurements in the two eyes of freely moving rats and mice using a virtual-reality optokinetic system. Vis. Neurosci. 22, 677–684 (2005).

  6. 6.

    , & The neural basis of perceptual learning. Neuron 31, 681–697 (2001).

  7. 7.

    Current source-density method and application in cat cerebral cortex: investigation of evoked potentials and EEG phenomena. Physiol. Rev. 65, 37–100 (1985).

  8. 8.

    & Deep cortical layers are activated directly by thalamus. Science 340, 1591–1594 (2013).

  9. 9.

    & Object recognition in rats and mice: a one-trial non-matching-to-sample learning task to study 'recognition memory'. Nat. Protoc. 1, 1306–1311 (2006).

  10. 10.

    et al. A critical role for NMDA receptors in parvalbumin interneurons for gamma rhythm induction and behavior. Mol. Psychiatry 17, 537–548 (2012).

  11. 11.

    , , , & NMDA receptor ablation on parvalbumin-positive interneurons impairs hippocampal synchrony, spatial representations, and working memory. Neuron 68, 557–569 (2010).

  12. 12.

    et al. Storage of spatial information by the maintenance mechanism of LTP. Science 313, 1141–1144 (2006).

  13. 13.

    , , , & PKM-ζ is not required for hippocampal synaptic plasticity, learning and memory. Nature 93, 420–423 (2013).

  14. 14.

    , & Rapid erasure of long-term memory associations in the cortex by an inhibitor of PKMζ. Science 317, 951–953 (2007).

  15. 15.

    , & Chronic cellular imaging of mouse visual cortex during operant behavior and passive viewing. Front. Cell Neurosci. 4, 3 (2010).

  16. 16.

    , & Psychophysical measurement of contrast sensitivity in the behaving mouse. J. Neurophysiol. 107, 758–765 (2012).

  17. 17.

    & Reward timing in the primary visual cortex. Science 311, 1606–1609 (2006).

  18. 18.

    , , , & Experience-dependent plasticity from eye opening enables lasting, visual cortex-dependent enhancement of motion vision. J. Neurosci. 28, 9817–9827 (2008).

  19. 19.

    , , & Functional specialization of seven mouse visual cortical areas. Neuron 72, 1040–1054 (2011).

  20. 20.

    & Where practice makes perfect in texture discrimination: evidence for primary visual cortex plasticity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88, 4966–4970 (1991).

  21. 21.

    , & Fast perceptual learning in visual hyperacuity. Science 256, 1018–1021 (1992).

  22. 22.

    How does PKMzeta maintain long-term memory? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 12, 9–15 (2011).

  23. 23.

    et al. Prkcz null mice show normal learning and memory. Nature 493, 416–419 (2013).

  24. 24.

    et al. PKMζ maintains spatial, instrumental, and classically conditioned long-term memories. PLoS Biol. 6, 2698–2706 (2008).

  25. 25.

    & Habituation: a dual-process theory. Psychol. Rev. 77, 419–450 (1970).

  26. 26.

    Neuronal mechanisms of habituation. Nature 215, 707–711 (1967).

  27. 27.

    & Evidence against conduction failure as the mechanism underlying monosynaptic habituation in frog spinal cord. Brain Res. 174, 329–332 (1979).

  28. 28.

    Higher nervous functions; the orienting reflex. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 25, 545–580 (1963).

  29. 29.

    Integrative Activity of the Brain (University of Chicago Press, 1967).

  30. 30.

    in Mechanisms of Learning and Motivation: A Memorial Volume for Jerry Konorski (eds. Dickinson, A. & Boakes, R.A.) 53–82 (Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1979).

  31. 31.

    , & Gating and habituation deficits in the schizophrenia disorders. Clin. Neurosci. 3, 131–139 (1995).

  32. 32.

    et al. Impaired visual cortical plasticity in schizophrenia. Biol. Psychiatry 71, 512–520 (2012).

  33. 33.

    & Stimulus-selective response plasticity in the visual cortex: an assay for the assessment of pathophysiology and treatment of cognitive impairment associated with psychiatric disorders. Biol. Psychiatry 71, 487–495 (2012).

  34. 34.

    et al. Reorganization of retinotopic cortical maps in adult mammals after lesions of the retina. Science 248, 229–231 (1990).

  35. 35.

    et al. NMDA receptor-dependent ocular dominance plasticity in adult visual cortex. Neuron 38, 977–985 (2003).

  36. 36.

    , & Sensitivity profile for orientation selectivity in the visual cortex of goggle-reared mice. PLoS ONE 7, e40630 (2012).

  37. 37.

    Components of episodic memory: the contribution of recollection and familiarity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 356, 1363–1374 (2001).

  38. 38.

    & Perceptual-mnemonic functions of the perirhinal cortex. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3, 142–151 (1999).

  39. 39.

    et al. Separate but interacting recognition memory systems for different senses: the role of the rat perirhinal cortex. Learn. Mem. 18, 435–443 (2011).

  40. 40.

    et al. Expression of long-term depression underlies visual recognition memory. Neuron 58, 186–194 (2008).

  41. 41.

    , , & A temporally distinct role for group I and group II metabotropic glutamate receptors in object recognition memory. Learn. Mem. 13, 178–186 (2006).

  42. 42.

    & Differential neuronal encoding of novelty, familiarity and recency in regions of the anterior temporal lobe. Neuropharmacology 37, 657–676 (1998).

  43. 43.

    , , & A rodent model for the study of invariant visual object recognition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 8748–8753 (2009).

  44. 44.

    Structural changes in the area striata of the mouse after enucleation. Exp. Brain Res. 5, 274–292 (1968).

  45. 45.

    , & Anatomical correlates of functional plasticity in mouse visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 19, 4388–4406 (1999).

  46. 46.

    , & Identification and localization of functional subdivisions in the visual cortex of the adult mouse. J. Comp. Neurol. 514, 107–116 (2009).

  47. 47.

    & Area map of mouse visual cortex. J. Comp. Neurol. 502, 339–357 (2007).

Download references


We thank A. Heynen, A. Chubykin and B. Auerbach for helpful scientific discussions. We also thank E. Sklar and E. Greene-Colozzi for technical assistance, and S. Meagher for invaluable administrative support. This research was partly supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, a grant from the National Eye Institute (RO1EY023037), and gifts from the Picower Institute Innovation Fund and the Picower Neurological Disorder Research Fund. We additionally acknowledge a JPB Foundation Fellowship to R.W.K., a National Institute of Mental Health training grant in support of E.S.K. (5T32MH074249) and a National Institute of Mental Health grant to J.P.G. (K99MH099654).

Author information


  1. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

    • Sam F Cooke
    • , Robert W Komorowski
    • , Eitan S Kaplan
    • , Jeffrey P Gavornik
    •  & Mark F Bear
  2. The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

    • Sam F Cooke
    • , Robert W Komorowski
    • , Eitan S Kaplan
    • , Jeffrey P Gavornik
    •  & Mark F Bear
  3. Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

    • Sam F Cooke
    • , Robert W Komorowski
    • , Eitan S Kaplan
    • , Jeffrey P Gavornik
    •  & Mark F Bear
  4. Department of Biology, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

    • Jeffrey P Gavornik


  1. Search for Sam F Cooke in:

  2. Search for Robert W Komorowski in:

  3. Search for Eitan S Kaplan in:

  4. Search for Jeffrey P Gavornik in:

  5. Search for Mark F Bear in:


S.F.C. designed all experiments, conducted and analyzed all data from experiments described in Figures 1,2,4,6,7,8 and all Supplemental Figures, collected data shown in Figure 3, and wrote the manuscript. R.W.K. designed, conducted, analyzed and described all experiments shown in Figure 5, and participated in analysis of Figure 3. E.S.K. conducted experiments described in Figures 2 and 7. J.P.G. designed and conducted experiments in Figure 3 and developed the stimulus-generation and recording system for acquisition of data and participated in data analysis. M.F.B. designed experiments and wrote the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark F Bear.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Figures

    Supplementary Figures 1–10

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Methods Checklist


  1. 1.

    Orientation-selective habituation (OSH) of the vidget

    This video shows an example of an awake, head-fixed mouse with cannulae and electrodes implanted bilaterally in binocular V1. The mouse is viewing 0.05 cycles/degree, 100% contrast, phase-reversing, sinusoidal grating stimuli, as described throughout this paper (note that there are fewer phase reversals for the sake of demonstration only). The mouse is resting in a restraining tube and positioned on a piezo-electrical sensor. Visual stimuli presented to the mouse can be viewed in a mirror, which is angled so as to show the video monitor that the mouse is viewing, on the right hand side of the frame. In the first instance, an oriented grating is presented that the mouse has never seen before (novel). This stimulus elicits a typically large vidget response. Note that the mouse returns to a quiescent state almost immediately after stimulus offset. After a period of grey screen a familiar orientation that the mouse has viewed repeatedly over 8 previous days is presented. As is typical, this stimulus elicits very little behavioural response, indicative of orientation-selective habituation (OSH).

  2. 2.

    Orientation-selective habituation (OSH) in freely moving mice

    This video shows an example of a freely moving mouse in a 40 cm x 40 cm arena with video monitors positioned at either end. Note that electrodes have already been chronically implanted, bilaterally in binocular V1. The mouse explores the arena freely until a 0.05 cycles/degree, 100% contrast, phase-reversing, sinusoidal grating stimulus of an orientation that the mouse has not viewed previously (novel) is presented on one of the two monitors. This stimulus produces a typical set of behavioural responses including orienting and exploratory responses. Note that there is no evidence of an aversive response. Within this same session, after a period of grey screen presentation, a familiar orientation that the mouse has viewed repeatedly over 8 previous days appears on the same monitor. As is typical, this stimulus evokes much less behavioural response, indicative of orientation-selective habituation (OSH).

About this article

Publication history





Further reading