The effect of hippocampal subfield damage on rapid temporal integration through statistical learning and associative...

The hippocampus (HPC) supports integration of information across time, often indexed by associative inference (AI) and statistical learning (SL) tasks. In AI, an indirect association between stimuli that never appeared together is inferred, whereas SL involves learning item relationships by extracting regularities across experiences. A recent model of hippocampal function (Schapiro et al., 2017) proposes that the HPC can support temporal integration in both paradigms through its two distinct pathways.

We tested this models' predictions in four patients with varying degrees of bilateral HPC damage and matched healthy controls, with two patients with complementary damage to either the monosynaptic or trisynaptic pathway. During AI, participants studied overlapping paired associates (AB, BC) and their memory was tested for premise pairs (AB) and for inferred pairs (AC). During SL, participants passively viewed a continuous picture sequence that contained an underlying structure of triplets that later had to be recognized.

Binomial distributions were used to calculate above chance performance at the individual level. For AI, patients with focal HPC damage were impaired at inference but could correctly infer pairs above chance once premise pair acquisition was equated to controls; however, the patient with HPC and cortical damage showed severe impairment at recalling premise and inferred pairs, regardless of accounting for premise pair performance. For SL, none of the patients performed above chance, but notably neither did most controls.

Associative inference of indirect relationships can be intact with HPC damage to either hippocampal pathways or the HPC more broadly, provided premise pairs can first be formed. Inference may remain intact through residual HPC tissue supporting premise pair acquisition, and/or through extra-hippocampal structures supporting inference at retrieval. Clear conclusions about hippocampal contributions to SL are precluded by low performance in controls, which we caution is not dissimilar to previous amnesic studies using the same task. This complicates interpretations of studies claiming necessity of hippocampal contributions to SL and warrants the use of a common and reliable task before conclusions can be drawn.