Retrieval of everyday experiences is fundamental for informing our future decisions. The fine-grained neurophysiological mechanisms that support such memory retrieval are largely unknown. We studied participants who first experienced, without repetition, unique multicomponent 40–80-s episodes. One day later, they engaged in cued retrieval of these episodes while undergoing magnetoencephalography. By decoding individual episode elements, we found that trial-by-trial successful retrieval was supported by the sequential replay of episode elements, with a temporal compression factor of >60. The direction of replay supporting retrieval, either backward or forward, depended on whether the task goal was to retrieve elements of an episode that followed or preceded, respectively, a retrieval cue. This sequential replay was weaker in very-high-performing participants, in whom instead we found evidence for simultaneous clustered reactivation. Our results demonstrate that memory-mediated decisions are supported by a rapid replay mechanism that can flexibly shift in direction in response to task goals.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $17.42 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Complete behavioral data are available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/qaewv/). Unthresholded group beamforming statistical parametric maps of replay onset power changes and category responses during the localizer are available on NeuroVault (https://neurovault.org/collections/6088/). The raw MEG data are available on OpenNeuro (https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds002761).
Code for the sequenceness analysis, as included in the full processing pathway simulation, can be found in the Supplementary Software and is also available on GitHub (https://github.com/gewimmer-neuro/memory-sequences).
Eichenbaum, H. & Cohen, N. J. From Conditioning to Conscious Recollection: Memory Systems of the Brain (Oxford Univ. Press, 2001).
Buzsaki, G. & Moser, E. I. Memory, navigation and theta rhythm in the hippocampal–entorhinal system. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 130–138 (2013).
Eichenbaum, H. The role of the hippocampus in navigation is memory. J. Neurophysiol 117, 1785–1796 (2017).
Pfeiffer, B. E. & Foster, D. J. Hippocampal place-cell sequences depict future paths to remembered goals. Nature 497, 74–79 (2013).
Jadhav, S. P., Kemere, C., German, P. W. & Frank, L. M. Awake hippocampal sharp-wave ripples support spatial memory. Science 336, 1454–1458 (2012).
Olafsdottir, H. F., Bush, D. & Barry, C. The role of hippocampal replay in memory and planning. Curr. Biol. 28, R37–R50 (2018).
Carr, M. F., Jadhav, S. P. & Frank, L. M. Hippocampal replay in the awake state: a potential substrate for memory consolidation and retrieval. Nat. Neurosci. 14, 147–153 (2011).
Polyn, S. M., Natu, V. S., Cohen, J. D. & Norman, K. A. Category-specific cortical activity precedes retrieval during memory search. Science 310, 1963–1966 (2005).
Horner, A. J., Bisby, J. A., Bush, D., Lin, W. J. & Burgess, N. Evidence for holistic episodic recollection via hippocampal pattern completion. Nat. Commun. 6, 7462 (2015).
Wimmer, G. E. & Shohamy, D. Preference by association: how memory mechanisms in the hippocampus bias decisions. Science 338, 270–273 (2012).
Wheeler, M. E., Petersen, S. E. & Buckner, R. L. Memory’s echo: vivid remembering reactivates sensory-specific cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 11125–11129 (2000).
Kurth-Nelson, Z., Barnes, G., Sejdinovic, D., Dolan, R. & Dayan, P. Temporal structure in associative retrieval. eLife 4, e04919 (2015).
Michelmann, S., Bowman, H. & Hanslmayr, S. The temporal signature of memories: identification of a general mechanism for dynamic memory replay in humans. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002528 (2016).
Brown, T. I. et al. Prospective representation of navigational goals in the human hippocampus. Science 352, 1323–1326 (2016).
Wimmer, G. E. & Büchel, C. Learning of distant state predictions by the orbitofrontal cortex in humans. Nat. Commun. 10, 2554 (2019).
Yaffe, R. B., Shaikhouni, A., Arai, J., Inati, S. K. & Zaghloul, K. A. Cued memory retrieval exhibits reinstatement of high gamma power on a faster timescale in the left temporal lobe and prefrontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 37, 4472–4480 (2017).
Jafarpour, A., Fuentemilla, L., Horner, A. J., Penny, W. & Duzel, E. Replay of very early encoding representations during recollection. J. Neurosci. 34, 242–248 (2014).
Michelmann, S., Staresina, B. P., Bowman, H. & Hanslmayr, S. Speed of time-compressed forward replay flexibly changes in human episodic memory. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3, 143–154 (2019).
Kurth-Nelson, Z., Economides, M., Dolan, R. J. & Dayan, P. Fast sequences of non-spatial state representations in humans. Neuron 91, 194–204 (2016).
Liu, Y., Dolan, R. J., Kurth-Nelson, Z. & Behrens, T. Human replay spontaneously reorganises experience. Cell 178, 640–652.e14 (2019).
Papale, A. E., Zielinski, M. C., Frank, L. M., Jadhav, S. P. & Redish, A. D. Interplay between hippocampal sharp-wave-ripple events and vicarious trial and error behaviors in decision making. Neuron 92, 975–982 (2016).
Pezzulo, G., Donnarumma, F., Maisto, D. & Stoianov, I. Planning at decision time and in the background during spatial navigation. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 29, 69–76 (2019).
Buzsaki, G. Hippocampal sharp wave-ripple: a cognitive biomarker for episodic memory and planning. Hippocampus 25, 1073–188 (2015).
Wikenheiser, A. M. & Redish, A. D. Hippocampal theta sequences reflect current goals. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 289–294 (2015).
Johnson, A. & Redish, A. D. Neural ensembles in CA3 transiently encode paths forward of the animal at a decision point. J. Neurosci. 27, 12176–12189 (2007).
Diba, K. & Buzsaki, G. Forward and reverse hippocampal place-cell sequences during ripples. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 1241–1242 (2007).
Ambrose, R. E., Pfeiffer, B. E. & Foster, D. J. Reverse replay of hippocampal place cells Is uniquely modulated by changing reward. Neuron 91, 1124–1136 (2016).
Foster, D. J. & Wilson, M. A. Reverse replay of behavioural sequences in hippocampal place cells during the awake state. Nature 440, 680–683 (2006).
Singer, A. C., Carr, M. F., Karlsson, M. P. & Frank, L. M. Hippocampal SWR activity predicts correct decisions during the initial learning of an alternation task. Neuron 77, 1163–1173 (2013).
Kumaran, D., Hassabis, D. & McClelland, J. L. What learning systems do intelligent agents need? Complementary learning systems theory updated. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20, 512–534 (2016).
Marr, D. Simple memory: a theory for archicortex. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 262, 23–81 (1971).
Schuck, N. W. & Niv, Y. Sequential replay of nonspatial task states in the human hippocampus. Science 364, eaaw5181 (2019).
Kievit, R. A., Frankenhuis, W. E., Waldorp, L. J. & Borsboom, D. Simpson’s paradox in psychological science: a practical guide. Front. Psychol. 4, 513 (2013).
Howard, M. W. & Kahana, M. J. A distributed representation of temporal context. J. Math. Psychol. 46, 269–299 (2002).
Tambini, A. & Davachi, L. Persistence of hippocampal multivoxel patterns into postencoding rest is related to memory. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 19591–19596 (2013).
Ben-Yakov, A. & Dudai, Y. Constructing realistic engrams: poststimulus activity of hippocampus and dorsal striatum predicts subsequent episodic memory. J. Neurosci. 31, 9032–9042 (2011).
Deuker, L. et al. Memory consolidation by replay of stimulus-specific neural activity. J. Neurosci. 33, 19373–19383 (2013).
Schapiro, A. C., McDevitt, E. A., Rogers, T. T., Mednick, S. C. & Norman, K. A. Human hippocampal replay during rest prioritizes weakly learned information and predicts memory performance. Nat. Commun. 9, 3920 (2018).
Tse, D. et al. Schemas and memory consolidation. Science 316, 76–82 (2007).
Lee, A. K. & Wilson, M. A. Memory of sequential experience in the hippocampus during slow wave sleep. Neuron 36, 1183–1194 (2002).
Nadasdy, Z., Hirase, H., Czurko, A., Csicsvari, J. & Buzsaki, G. Replay and time compression of recurring spike sequences in the hippocampus. J. Neurosci. 19, 9497–9507 (1999).
Tolman, E. C. Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol. Rev. 55, 189–208 (1948).
Behrens, T. E. J. et al. What is a cognitive map? Organizing knowledge for flexible behavior. Neuron 100, 490–509 (2018).
Dolan, R. J. & Dayan, P. Goals and habits in the brain. Neuron 80, 312–325 (2013).
Shohamy, D. & Daw, N. D. Integrating memories to guide decisions. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 5, 85–90 (2015).
Shadlen, M. N. & Shohamy, D. Decision making and sequential sampling from memory. Neuron 90, 927–939 (2016).
Bakkour, A. The hippocampus supports deliberation during value-based decisions. eLife 8, e46080 (2019).
Wimmer, G. E. & Buechel, C. Reactivation of reward-related patterns from single past episodes supports memory-based decision making. J. Neurosci. 36, 2868–2880 (2016).
Brewin, C. R., Gregory, J. D., Lipton, M. & Burgess, N. Intrusive images in psychological disorders: characteristics, neural mechanisms, and treatment implications. Psychol. Rev. 117, 210–232 (2010).
Suh, J., Foster, D. J., Davoudi, H., Wilson, M. A. & Tonegawa, S. Impaired hippocampal ripple-associated replay in a mouse model of schizophrenia. Neuron 80, 484–493 (2013).
Liu, Y., Dolan, R. J., Penagos-Vargas, H. L., Kurth-Nelson, Z. & Behrens, T. E. J. Measuring sequences of representations with temporally delayed linear modelling. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.30.066407 (2020).
Braun, E. K., Wimmer, G. E. & Shohamy, D. Retroactive and graded prioritization of memory by reward. Nat. Commun. 9, 4886 (2018).
Wimmer, G. E., Braun, E. K., Daw, N. D. & Shohamy, D. Episodic memory encoding interferes with reward learning and decreases striatal prediction errors. J. Neurosci. 34, 14901–14912 (2014).
Van Veen, B. D., Van Drongelen, W., Yuchtman, M. & Suzuki, A. Localization of brain electrical activity via linearly constrained minimum variance spatial filtering. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 44, 867–880 (1997).
The authors thank Z. Kurth-Nelson for helpful discussions. This work was supported by a Wellcome Trust Investigator Award (098362/Z/12/Z) to R.J.D. G.E.W. was supported by Max Planck Society (647070403019). Y.L. is supported by a UCL Graduate Research Scholarship and an Overseas Research Scholarship. The Max Planck University College London Centre is a joint initiative supported by University College London and the Max Planck Society. The Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging is supported by core funding from the Wellcome Trust (203147/Z/16/Z).
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended Data Fig. 1 Memory performance as a function of episode length and episode ending and performance on the post-scan episode re-ordering test.
As in Fig. 1c, purple dots represent individual data points for regular performance participants with sufficient incorrect response (error) trials free from MEG artifacts for accuracy analyses (after, n = 17; before, n = 18), in order to keep consistency between behavioral and MEG analyses. Note that performance for participants in subsets of trials will not always follow the mean defined by all trials. a and b, Memory did not significantly differ in the after condition by length (one-sample two-sided t-test t(24) = -1.389; P = 0.178; two one-sided test (TOST) equivalence test P = 0.065, thus we are unable to rule out the presence of a medium-sized effect) or the before condition by length (t(24) = 0.661; P = 0.515; TOST equivalence test P = 0.0156). c and d, Memory did not differ in the after condition by end valence (t(24) = -0.068; P = 0.946; TOST equivalence test P = 0.004) or the before condition by end valence (t(24) = 0.1478; P = 0.88; TOST equivalence test P = 0.005). Given the null behavioral differences, MEG analysis collapsed across these variables. e, Performance on the post-scan episode sequence memory re-ordering test (n = 24 participants; data are missing from one participant). Participants attempted replacement of each element within each episode; individual scores represent average binary accuracy. Sequence memory did not have a condition, so regular performance participants (purple) represent those participants included in both the after and before condition regular performance groups (n = 15); the data points for the remaining high performance participants are depicted in orange. Gray boxes represent the 25–75 percentiles of the data; median: line, mean: dot; error bars represent standard error of the mean (s.e.m.). All figure results include n = 25 participants.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Illustration of localizer classifier performance for the six stimulus categories that made up the first 4 components of episodes and performance of a classifier trained for each of the 32 individual stimuli from these categories.
a, Cross-validated classification performance for each category (face, building, body part, object, animal and car). Results represent training on the 200 ms time point and testing across all time points. b, Classifier sensor weight correlations across participants within and between-categories reveal strong within-category similarity, suggesting similar sensor importance across participants for the same categories. Categories are sorted as in the legend for panel a: face, building, body part, object, animal and car. c, Classification performance for each of 32 stimuli. Results represent training on the 200 ms time point and testing across all time points. (Colors were randomly assigned.) d, Cross-classification performance for 32 individual stimuli where the classifier was trained on the localizer phase (at 200 ms) and tested on the cues in the memory phase. Performance was above the pre-trial baseline level and significant (one-sample two-sided t-test t(24) = 9.20, P<1e-8). Compared to the category-level cross-classification results in Fig. 1f (y-axis range is matched across figures for comparison), the magnitude of the effect versus baseline was weaker: the effect for the category across-phase classification of memory cues was significantly stronger than the single-stimulus across-phase classification (t(24) = 12.47, P<1e-11). Yellow line represents 200 ms, the peak category classification time point in the localizer phase. The dashed line represents the estimated chance threshold to assess significance. e, Trained classifier beta weight correlation across sensors across all 32 individual stimuli depict natural emergence of category structure. The image represents that average of individual participant correlation matrices. Categories are sorted as in the legend for panel a: face, building, body part, object, animal and car. Shaded error margins represent s.e.m.. All figure results include n = 25 participants.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Illustration of source localization results for the six categories of stimuli in the localizer phase.
Each category was contrasted versus all other categories. We found expected patterns of activation for the 4 categories that have received the most investigation in the literature: faces, buildings, body parts, and objects. For faces, activation peaked in a region roughly consistent with the fusiform face area (FFA) as well as the occipital face area (OFA). Activation for building stimuli was located between the well-known parahippocampal place area (PPA) and the retrosplenial cortex (RSC), a region also known to respond to scene and building stimuli. Activation for body part stimuli was in a region consistent with the extrastriate body area (EBA). Activation for objects was in a region consistent with the object-associated lateral occipital cortex (LOC) as well as an anterior temporal cluster that may relate to conceptual processing of objects. Activity for the two less-studied categories, animals and cars, was localized to different areas of the ventral and posterior occipital cortex. Each individual category was thresholded at a level that best displayed localized peaks. Results are for illustration only. Full unthresholded maps can be found at https://neurovault.org/collections/6088/. The z coordinates refers to the MNI atlas. All figure results include n = 25 participants.
a, Classifiers were trained on the 6 categories that made up the episodes. The mean weighting (approximate importance) of each sensor for a given category, for illustration; in analyses, participant-specific weights were used. (Anterior = top; posterior = bottom.) b, Mean sensor weighting across all categories. (In panels a and b, results represent the mean across n = 25 participants.) c, Illustration of how the trained classifiers are applied to the MEG data time series for each cued retrieval period, where states 1-4 represents episode components 1-4 from Fig. 1a. d, The sequenceness analysis detects systematic time shifts (T) in category evidence. A forward sequence illustration is shown on the left; a backward sequence illustration is shown on the right.
The top row shows the percentage of resulting P-values from 0-5% derived from the individual differences analyses and the bottom row shows the percentage of resulting P-values from 0-5% derived from the trial-by-trial multilevel regression analyses (panels d-f). After condition in cyan; before condition in blue. In panel a and d, ‘x’ symbols mark the empirical 5% thresholds noted in the Results. a, Permutation results of the individual differences analysis using real MEG and behavioral data, shuffling correct and incorrect labels (25k simulations). b, Results using simulated MEG data of the individual differences analyses with behavioral variables taken from actual participant data (10k simulations). c, Results using simulated MEG data of the individual differences analyses with simulated (approximated) behavioral variables (10k simulations). d, Permutation results of the trial-by-trial multilevel regression analysis using the real MEG and behavioral data, shuffling correct and incorrect labels (25k simulations). e, Simulation results of the multilevel regression analyses with behavioral variables taken from actual participant data (10k simulations). f, Simulation results of the multilevel regression analyses with simulated (approximated) behavioral variables (10k simulations). All simulations include n = 25 participants.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Additional individual differences analyses using true sequenceness and other episode sequenceness.
As in Fig. 1c the data points for the regular performance participants are shown in purple; high performance participants are shown in orange. Correlations report two-sided Pearson’s correlation. a,b, Mean performance relationship to sequenceness, as in Fig. 3, but here separating sequenceness into forward and backward components. (a) In the after condition, a regression analysis including both forward and backward sequenceness showed that reverse sequenceness was negatively and numerically more strongly related to mean performance (forward, one-sample two-sided t-test, t(22) = 2.265, P = 0.0337; backward t(22) = -2.9111, P = 0.0081). Forward in purple; backward in blue. (b) In the before condition, forward sequenceness was related to mean performance (forward, one-sample two-sided t-test, t(22) = -2.2419, P = 0.0354; backward t(22) = 1.0456, P = 0.3071). Error bars represent 95% CIs. Both results support the primary individual difference correlations in the Results (Fig. 3). c-d, In the after and before conditions, mean sequenceness strength (forward-backward) with a 40–50-ms lag did not significantly relate to overall mean memory performance (percentage of correct trials). (d) As in panel c, here for the before condition. e-h, Correlations with the ‘other episode’ sequenceness measure. (e,f) In the after and before conditions, mean 40-50 ms sequenceness for other episode transitions (excluding the current episode) did not significantly relate to mean memory performance. (g-h) In the after and before conditions, mean 100–120-ms sequenceness for other episode transitions did not significantly relate to mean memory performance. All figure results include n = 25 participants.
Extended Data Fig. 7 Analyses relating both current episode sequenceness and ‘other episode’ sequenceness to accuracy.
Forward in purple; backward in blue. Multilevel regression analysis beta coefficients in panels a-f and h; two-sided p-values determined via bootstrapping. Error bars represent 95% CIs. a, In the after condition, sequenceness derived from current episode sequenceness (100–120-ms; left) remained significant while other episode sequenceness at lags determined by the leave-one-subject-out (LOSO) procedure showed no relationship to successful retrieval (right; Supplementary Table 3). b, As in panel a, but for the before condition. c, Difference between current episode sequenceness (LOSO lag) and other episode sequenceness in the after condition (left) and before condition (right). d, In the after condition, current episode sequenceness (100–120-ms lag; left, darker color) remains significant (left) while other episode sequenceness (derived from all other transitions excluding the current episode transitions) at a lag of 40–50-ms lag showed no relationship to successful retrieval (right, lighter color; Supplementary Table 4). e, As in panel d, but for the before condition. f, Difference between current episode sequenceness (40–50-ms lag) and other episode sequenceness in the after condition (left) and before condition (right). g, Individual regression coefficients for the trial-by-trial relationship between sequenceness and successful retrieval in the after and before conditions as in Fig. 3a., but derived from a single-level GLM instead of a multilevel regression analysis. (Gray boxes represent the 25–75 percentiles of the data; median: line, mean: dot; error bars represent s.e.m. h, For a single stimulus analyses (instead of the primary category-level analyses), the classifier showed cross-classification performance that was numerically close to chance (see Extended Data Fig. 3). For completeness, in the after condition, we found no relationship between single-stimulus backward sequenceness and retrieval success (P = 0.379). In the before condition we found a positive, but non-significant, relationship between single-stimulus forward sequenceness and retrieval success (P = 0.0920). All figure results include n = 25 participants. *P < 0.05.
a, Timecourse of power changes relative to replay onset in the anterior hippocampus in the after (cyan) and before (blue) conditions. (Shaded error margins represent SEM.) b, Power in the right visual cortex at replay onset in the after condition, displaying a different view of the whole-brain results shown in a coronal section in Fig. 4a. Statistical map thresholded at P < 0.001 uncorrected, for display; cluster significant at P < 0.001 whole-brain FWE, one-sided. c, Power in the left MTL 10 ms before the onset of reverse sequenceness events correlated with performance, such that lower performing participants showed the strongest increase in power (https://neurovault.org/images/306232/). Statistical map thresholded at P < 0.001 uncorrected, for display; cluster significant at P = 0.003 whole-brain FWE, one-sided. d, Performance – power relationship in the right anterior hippocampus. Data are for visualization purposes only and represent the peak coordinate as in panel c. High performance participants in orange; regular performance participants in purple. e, After condition unthresholded backward replay event onset beamforming results. f, Before condition unthresholded forward replay event onset beamforming results. For panels e and f, transparency shows underlying anatomy; maximum color P = 0.0001. All figure results include n = 25 participants. The x, y, and z coordinates refers to the MNI atlas.
Extended Data Fig. 9 Time-frequency analysis of replay onsets in the after and before conditions separately.
Results as in Fig. 4c, d. a, Time-frequency analysis showing power increases at replay onset in the after condition showing frequencies up to ~50-Hz. 0 ms represents the onset of putative replay events. (Average across correct trials.) b, Time-frequency analysis as in panel a, here in the before condition. c, Time-frequency analysis of high frequencies in the after condition (using data sampled at 600-Hz) relative to replay onset d, Time-frequency analysis of high frequencies as in panel c, here in the before condition. All figure results include n = 25 participants.
Extended Data Fig. 10 Relationship between accuracy and alternative non-sequential measures: cue-evoked reactivation, on-screen cue response, and zero-lag correlation between within-episode category evidence during the retrieval period.
Forward in purple; backward in blue; control variable in red. Regression coefficients from multilevel analyses; two-sided p-value determined via bootstrapping. Error bars represent 95% CI. a-b, Cue-evoked reactivation of within-episode elements minus other-episode elements from 200–250-ms and retrieval success in the after condition (a) and before condition (b), included in the regression model with forward and backward sequenceness. The effects of cue-evoked reactivation were non-significant (Supplementary Table 7); the relationships between sequenceness and memory were unaffected. c-d, Evidence for response to the on-screen cue from 200–250-ms and retrieval success in the after condition (c) and before condition (d), included in the regression model with forward and backward sequenceness. The effect of cue response was significant in the after condition but not the before condition (Supplementary Table 7); the relationships between sequenceness and memory were unaffected. e, The correlation between within-episode category evidence across the 160–3667-ms cue period is driven by high-magnitude correlation events (>= 95% of mean), and activity for these events peaks and falls rapidly. For illustration, the purple line represents the mean across participants in the after condition. (Shaded error margins represent s.e.m.) f, The correlation between evidence for within-episode categories minus the correlation between all other pairings (zero-lag correlation difference) across the 160–3667-ms cue period of analysis is not related to mean performance on a given episode (as in Fig. 5c) in very high or regular performance participants: High performance (multilevel regression β = -0.050 ± 0.0463; z = -1.079, P = 0.290; n = 10 participants); regular performance (β = -0.0612 ± 0.0590; z = -1.037, P = 0.296; n = 15 participants). g-h, The zero-lag correlation difference included in the regression model with forward and backward sequenceness in the after condition (g) and in the before condition (h). The effect of clustered reactivation was non-significant (after: β = 0.118 ± 0.462; z = 0.255, P = 0.770; before: β = -0.724 ± 0.494; z = -1.467, P = 0.145); the relationships between sequenceness and memory were unaffected. Error bars represent 95% CIs. With the exception of panel f, all figure results include n = 25 participants.
About this article
Cite this article
Wimmer, G.E., Liu, Y., Vehar, N. et al. Episodic memory retrieval success is associated with rapid replay of episode content. Nat Neurosci 23, 1025–1033 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-0649-z
Trends in Neurosciences (2020)
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (2020)