Abstract
How do we preserve and distort our ongoing experiences when encoding them into episodic memories? The mental contexts in which we interpret experiences are often person-specific, even when the experiences themselves are shared. Here we develop a geometric framework for mathematically characterizing the subjective conceptual content of dynamic naturalistic experiences. We model experiences and memories as trajectories through word-embedding spaces whose coordinates reflect the universe of thoughts under consideration. Memory encoding can then be modelled as geometrically preserving or distorting the ‘shape’ of the original experience. We applied our approach to data collected as participants watched and verbally recounted a television episode while undergoing functional neuroimaging. Participants’ recountings preserved coarse spatial properties (essential narrative elements) but not fine spatial scale (low-level) details of the episode’s trajectory. We also identified networks of brain structures sensitive to these trajectory shapes.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The fMRI data we analysed are available online at https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/handle/88435/dsp01nz8062179. The behavioural data are available at https://github.com/ContextLab/sherlock-topic-model-paper/tree/master/data/raw.
Code availability
All of our analysis code can be downloaded from https://github.com/ContextLab/sherlock-topic-model-paper.
References
Murdock, B. B. The serial position effect of free recall. J. Exp. Psychol. 64, 482–488 (1962).
Kahana, M. J. Associative retrieval processes in free recall. Mem. Cogn. 24, 103–109 (1996).
Yonelinas, A. P. The nature of recollection and familiarity: a review of 30 years of research. J. Mem. Lang. 46, 441–517 (2002).
Kahana, M. J. Foundations of Human Memory (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).
Koriat, A. & Goldsmith, M. Memory in naturalistic and laboratory contexts: distinguishing accuracy-oriented and quantity-oriented approaches to memory assessment. J. Exp. Psychol. 123, 297–315 (1994).
Huk, A., Bonnen, K. & He, B. J. Beyond trial-based paradigms: continuous behavior, ongoing neural activity, and naturalistic stimuli. J. Neurosci. 38, 7551–7558 (2018).
Lerner, Y., Honey, C. J., Silbert, L. J. & Hasson, U. Topographic mapping of a hierarchy of temporal receptive windows using a narrated story. J. Neurosci. 31, 2906–2915 (2011).
Manning, J. R. Episodic memory: mental time travel or a quantum ‘memory wave’ function? Preprint at OSF https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6zjwb (2019).
Manning, J. R. in Handbook of Human Memory (eds Kahana, M. J. & Wagner, A. D.) (Oxford Univ. Press, in the press).
Howard, M. W. & Kahana, M. J. A distributed representation of temporal context. J. Math. Psychol. 46, 269–299 (2002).
Howard, M. W. et al. A unified mathematical framework for coding time, space, and sequences in the medial temporal lobe. J. Neurosci. 34, 4692–4707 (2014).
Manning, J. R., Norman, K. A. & Kahana, M. J. in The Cognitive Neurosciences 5th edition (ed. Gazzaniga, M.) 557–566 (MIT Press, 2015).
Ranganath, C. & Ritchey, M. Two cortical systems for memory-guided behavior. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 13, 713–726 (2012).
Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., Swallow, K. M., Braver, T. S. & Reynolds, J. R. Event perception: a mind–brain perspective. Psychol. Bull. 133, 273–293 (2007).
Zwaan, R. A. & Radvansky, G. A. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychol. Bull. 123, 162 – 185 (1998).
Radvansky, G. A. & Zacks, J. M. Event boundaries in memory and cognition. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 17, 133–140 (2017).
Brunec, I. K., Moscovitch, M. M. & Barense, M. D. Boundaries shape cognitive representations of spaces and events. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 637–650 (2018).
Heusser, A. C., Ezzyat, Y., Shiff, I. & Davachi, L. Perceptual boundaries cause mnemonic trade-offs between local boundary processing and across-trial associative binding. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 44, 1075–1090 (2018).
Clewett, D. & Davachi, L. The ebb and flow of experience determines the temporal structure of memory. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 17, 186–193 (2017).
Ezzyat, Y. & Davachi, L. What constitutes an episode in episodic memory? Psychol. Sci. 22, 243–252 (2011).
DuBrow, S. & Davachi, L. The influence of contextual boundaries on memory for the sequential order of events. J. Exp. Psychol. 142, 1277–1286 (2013).
Tompary, A. & Davachi, L. Consolidation promotes the emergence of representational overlap in the hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex. Neuron 96, 228–241 (2017).
Chen, J. et al. Shared memories reveal shared structure in neural activity across individuals. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 115 (2017).
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y. & Jordan, M. I. Latent Dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 993–1022 (2003).
Rabiner, L. A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proc. IEEE 77, 257–286 (1989).
Baldassano, C. et al. Discovering event structure in continuous narrative perception and memory. Neuron 95, 709–721 (2017).
Blei, D. M. & Lafferty, J. D. Dynamic topic models. In Proc. 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML ’06 113–120 (ACM, 2006).
Manning, J. R., Polyn, S. M., Baltuch, G., Litt, B. & Kahana, M. J. Oscillatory patterns in temporal lobe reveal context reinstatement during memory search. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 12893–12897 (2011).
Howard, M. W., Viskontas, I. V., Shankar, K. H. & Fried, I. Ensembles of human MTL neurons ‘jump back in time’ in response to a repeated stimulus. Hippocampus 22, 1833–1847 (2012).
Atkinson, R. C. & Shiffrin, R. M. Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes. J. Learn. Motiv. 2, 89–105 (1968).
Postman, L. & Phillips, L. W. Short-term temporal changes in free recall. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 17, 132–138 (1965).
Welch, G. B. & Burnett, C. T. Is primacy a factor in association-formation. Am. J. Psychol. 35, 396–401 (1924).
Polyn, S. M., Norman, K. A. & Kahana, M. J. A context maintenance and retrieval model of organizational processes in free recall. Psychol. Rev. 116, 129–156 (2009).
Manning, J. R. & Kahana, M. J. Interpreting semantic clustering effects in free recall. Memory 20, 511–517 (2012).
Heusser, A. C., Ziman, K., Owen, L. L. W. & Manning, J. R. HyperTools: a Python toolbox for gaining geometric insights into high-dimensional data. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 18, 1–6 (2018).
McInnes, L., Healy, J. & Melville, J. UMAP: uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03426 (2018).
Paller, K. A. & Wagner, A. D. Observing the transformation of experience into memory. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 93–102 (2002).
Yarkoni, T., Poldrack, R. A., Nichols, T. E., Van Essen, D. C. & Wager, T. D. Large-scale automated synthesis of human functional neuroimaging data. Nat. Methods 8, 665 (2011).
Bellmund, J. L. S., Gärdenfors, P., Moser, E. I. & Doeller, C. F. Navigating cognition: spatial codes for human thinking. Science 362, eaat6766 (2018).
Bellmund, J. L. S. et al. Deforming the metric of cognitive maps distorts memory. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 177–188 (2020).
Constantinescu, A. O., O’Reilly, J. X. & Behrens, T. E. J. Organizing conceptual knowledge in humans with a gridlike code. Science 352, 1464–1468 (2016).
Gilboa, A. & Marlatte, H. Neurobiology of schemas and schema-mediated memory. Trends Cogn. Sci. 21, 618–631 (2017).
Baldassano, C., Hasson, U. & Norman, K. A. Representation of real-world event schemas during narrative perception. J. Neurosci. 38, 9689–9699 (2018).
Huth, A. G., Nisimoto, S., Vu, A. T. & Gallant, J. L. A continuous semantic space describes the representation of thousands of object and action categories across the human brain. Neuron 76, 1210–1224 (2012).
Huth, A. G., de Heer, W. A., Griffiths, T. L., Theunissen, F. E. & Gallant, J. L. Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex. Nature 532, 453–458 (2016).
Gagnepain, P. et al. Collective memory shapes the organization of individual memories in the medial prefrontal cortex. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 189–200 (2020).
Simony, E., Honey, C. J., Chen, J. & Hasson, U. Dynamic reconfiguration of the default mode network during narrative comprehension. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–13 (2016).
Zadbood, A., Chen, J., Leong, Y. C., Norman, K. A. & Hasson, U. How we transmit memories to other brains: Constructing shared neural representations via communication. Cereb. Cortex 27, 4988–5000 (2017).
Simony, E. & Chang, C. Analysis of stimulus-induced brain dynamics during naturalistic paradigms. NeuroImage 216, 116461 (2020).
Landauer, T. K. & Dumais, S. T. A solution to Plato’s problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychol. Rev. 104, 211–240 (1997).
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G. & Dean, J. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781 (2013).
Cer, D. et al. Universal sentence encoder. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.11175 (2018).
Radford, A. et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog 1, 9 (2019).
Brown, T. B. et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165 (2020).
Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011).
Hasson, U., Yang, E., Vallines, I., Heeger, D. J. & Rubin, N. A hierarchy of temporal receptive windows in human cortex. J. Neurosci. 28, 2539–2550 (2008).
Hasson, U., Chen, J. & Honey, C. J. Hierarchical process memory: memory as an integral component of information processing. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 304–315 (2015).
Dobrushin, R. L. Prescribing a system of random variables by conditional distributions. Theory Probab. Appl. 15, 458–486 (1970).
Ramdas, A., Trillos, N. & Cuturi, M. On Wasserstein two-sample testing and related families of nonparametric tests. Entropy 19, 47 (2017).
Heusser, A. C., Fitzpatrick, P. C., Field, C. E., Ziman, K. & Manning, J. R. Quail: a Python toolbox for analyzing and plotting free recall data. J. Open Source Softw. 2, 424 (2017).
Fisher, R. A.Statistical Methods for Research Workers (Oliver and Boyd, 1925).
Berndt, D. J. & Clifford, J. Using dynamic time warping to find patterns in time series. In AAAIWS ’94: Proc. 3rd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 359–370 (1994).
Freedman, D., Riesenhuber, M., Poggio, T. & Miller, E. Categorical representation of visual stimuli in the primate prefrontal cortex. Science 291, 312–316 (2001).
Sigman, M. & Dehaene, S. Brain mechanisms of serial and parallel processing during dual-task performance. J. Neurosci. 28, 7585–7589 (2008).
Charron, S. & Koechlin, E. Divided representations of current goals in the human frontal lobes. Science 328, 360–363 (2010).
Rishel, C. A., Huang, G. & Freedman, D. J. Independent category and spatial encoding in parietal cortex. Neuron 77, 969–979 (2013).
Kriegeskorte, N., Mur, M. & Bandettini, P. Representational similarity analysis—connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2, 1 – 28 (2008).
Acknowledgements
We thank L. Chang, J. Chen, C. Honey, C. Lee, L. Owen, E. Whitaker, X. Xu and K. Ziman for feedback and scientific discussions, and we thank J. Chen, Y. C. Leong, C. Honey, C. Yong, K. Norman and U. Hasson for sharing the data used in our study. Our work was supported in part by National Science Foundation Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research Award number 1632738. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of our supporting organizations. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: A.C.H. and J.R.M.; methodology: A.C.H., P.C.F. and J.R.M.; software: A.C.H., P.C.F. and J.R.M.; analysis: A.C.H., P.C.F. and J.R.M.; writing, reviewing and editing: A.C.H., P.C.F. and J.R.M.; and supervision: J.R.M.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Primary Handling Editor: Marike Schiffer.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Methods detail for recall trajectory analysis displayed in Figure 6B.
A. This panel replicates Figure 6B, but with two additions. First, individual participants’ recall trajectories are displayed (faintly) as light gray lines. Second, three locations on the trajectory have been highlighted (blue, yellow, and red circles). B. These zoomed-in views of the locations highlighted in Panel A show the average trajectory (black) and individual participants’ trajectories (gray lines) that intersect the given region of topic space. C. For each circular region of topic space tiling the 2D embedding plane displayed in Panel A, we compute the distribution of angles formed between each participant’s trajectory segment (that is, the point at which the trajectory enters and exists the region of topic space) and the x-axis. The distributions of angles for these three example regions are displayed in the colored rose plots. We use Rayleigh tests to assign an arrow direction, length, and color for that region of topic space. Arrows displayed in color are significant at the p < 0.05 level (corrected). The arrow directions are oriented according to the circular means of each distribution, and the arrow lengths are proportional to the lengths of those mean vectors. The example regions have been oriented from left to right in decreasing order of consistency across participants.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Recall temporal correlation matrices and event segmentation fits.
Each panel is in the same format as Figure 2E. The yellow boxes indicate HMM-identified event boundaries.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Episode-recall event correlation matrices.
Each panel is in the same format as Figure 2G. The yellow boxes mark the matched episode event for each recall event (that is, the maximum correlation in each column).
Extended Data Fig. 4 Episode and recall topic proportions matrix K-optimization functions.
We selected the optimal K-value for the episode and each recall topic proportions matrix using the formula described in Methods. This computation resulted in a curve for each matrix, describing the Wasserstein distance between the distributions of within-event and across-event topic vector correlations, as a function of K.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Figs. 1–3 and Supplementary References.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Heusser, A.C., Fitzpatrick, P.C. & Manning, J.R. Geometric models reveal behavioural and neural signatures of transforming experiences into memories. Nat Hum Behav 5, 905–919 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01051-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01051-6
This article is cited by
-
Temporal asymmetries in inferring unobserved past and future events
Nature Communications (2024)
-
Fitness tracking reveals task-specific associations between memory, mental health, and physical activity
Scientific Reports (2022)
-
Predicting memory from the network structure of naturalistic events
Nature Communications (2022)
-
Neural signatures associated with temporal compression in the verbal retelling of past events
Communications Biology (2022)
-
The “Narratives” fMRI dataset for evaluating models of naturalistic language comprehension
Scientific Data (2021)