Revisiting the Role of the Medial Temporal Lobe in Motor Learning

Classic taxonomies of memory distinguish explicit and implicit memory systems, placing motor skills squarely in the latter branch. This assertion is in part a consequence of foundational discoveries showing significant motor learning in amnesics. Those findings suggest that declarative memory processes in the medial temporal lobe (MTL) do not contribute to motor learning. Here, we revisit this issue, testing an individual (L. S. J.) with severe MTL damage on four motor learning tasks and comparing her performance to age-matched controls. Consistent with previous findings in amnesics, we observed that L. S. J. could improve motor performance despite having significantly impaired declarative memory. However, she tended to perform poorly relative to age-matched controls, with deficits apparently related to flexible action selection. Further supporting an action selection deficit, L. S. J. fully failed to learn a task that required the acquisition of arbitrary action–outcome associations. We thus propose a modest revision to the classic taxonomic model: Although MTL-dependent memory processes are not necessary for some motor learning to occur, they play a significant role in the acquisition, implementation, and retrieval of action selection strategies. These findings have implications for our understanding of the neural correlates of motor learning, the psychological mechanisms of skill, and the theory of multiple memory systems.

Place vs. Response Learning: History, Controversy, and Neurobiology

The present article provides a historical review of the place and response learning plus-maze tasks with a focus on the behavioral and neurobiological findings. The article begins by reviewing the conflict between Edward C. Tolman’s cognitive view and Clark L. Hull’s stimulus-response (S-R) view of learning and how the place and response learning plus-maze tasks were designed to resolve this debate. Cognitive learning theorists predicted that place learning would be acquired faster than response learning, indicating the dominance of cognitive learning, whereas S-R learning theorists predicted that response learning would be acquired faster, indicating the dominance of S-R learning. Here, the evidence is reviewed demonstrating that either place or response learning may be dominant in a given learning situation and that the relative dominance of place and response learning depends on various parametric factors (i.e., amount of training, visual aspects of the learning environment, emotional arousal, et cetera). Next, the neurobiology underlying place and response learning is reviewed, providing strong evidence for the existence of multiple memory systems in the mammalian brain. Research has indicated that place learning is principally mediated by the hippocampus, whereas response learning is mediated by the dorsolateral striatum. Other brain regions implicated in place and response learning are also discussed in this section, including the dorsomedial striatum, amygdala, and medial prefrontal cortex. An exhaustive review of the neurotransmitter systems underlying place and response learning is subsequently provided, indicating important roles for glutamate, dopamine, acetylcholine, cannabinoids, and estrogen. Closing remarks are made emphasizing the historical importance of the place and response learning tasks in resolving problems in learning theory, as well as for examining the behavioral and neurobiological mechanisms of multiple memory systems. How the place and response learning tasks may be employed in the future for examining extinction, neural circuits of memory, and human psychopathology is also briefly considered.

Memory systems of the brain

Humans have long been fascinated by how memories are formed, how they can be damaged or lost, or still seem vibrant after many years. Thus the search for the locus and organization of memory has had a long history, in which the notion that is is composed of distinct systems developed during the second half of the 20th century.A fundamental dichotomy between conscious and unconscious memory processes was first drawn based on evidences from the study of amnesiac subjects and the systematic experimental work with animals. The use of behavioral and neural measures together with imaging techniques have progressively led researchers to agree in the existence of a variety of neural architectures that support multiple memory systems.This article presents a historical lens with which to contextualize these idea on memory systems, and provides a current account for the multiple memory systems model.