This is based on a piece about our research that I was asked to write for a thing after recently being selected to receive the Experimental Psychology Society Prize. The EPS is one of the most venerable and respected learned societies in my field, and it was a real honour for our work to be recognised by them.Whenever old friends get together, it rarely takes long for people to start reminiscing about the past. Amusing (sometimes, bawdy) tales might be told about events that may have occurred many years ago. As a listener, you can find yourself mentally transported back in time, re-living a fondly-remembered episode as if it were playing out in front of you once again. Except – how do you know that you were actually there when the event originally took place? How can you be sure that you’re remembering a faithful representation of what happened, as opposed to a fictitious recollection of an event that might have been entirely imagined? In short, how do we determine whether our memories are real?
We have spent the last few years pondering these questions, seeking answers by undertaking experiments using cognitive neuroscience methods like functional brain imaging of healthy volunteers and studies of neurological and psychiatric disorders, as well as of normal aging. Our aim is to understand how the brain supports our capacity to distinguish what is real from what we imagined, an ability that Marcia Johnson has termed “reality monitoring” which is vital for maintaining confidence in our memories, and in understanding ourselves as individuals with a past and a future. In characterising how these processes might be organised in the brain, we can better understand the way in which they may break down in disorders like schizophrenia, in which perceptions of reality can be altered.
![]() |
| View of brain showing anterior prefrontal cortex |
In the field of memory research, scientists sought to use functional brain imaging techniques to identify brain areas that were active when people undertook complex memory tasks like recollecting the context in which previous events were experienced, but found it difficult to characterise what role anterior prefrontal cortex might play. Some studies reported memory-related activation there whereas other, equally well conducted, apparently very similar studies failed to identify activity in that region. We hypothesised that the discrepancy between studies might be because the kinds of information participants were being asked to remember differed according to whether it had been generated by internal cognitive functions such as thought and imagination, or derived from the outside world by perceptual processes.
![]() |
| Anterior prefrontal cortex (L) contributes with areas like the medial temporal lobe (R) to reality monitoring |
One of the applications of this work has been to inform understanding of the cognitive dysfunction seen in clinical disorders, such as schizophrenia. Although schizophrenia can vary in its presentation, among the positive symptoms often observed are hallucinations, whereby patients report, for example, hearing voices when none are present. It has been suggested by Chris Frith and others that these symptoms may result from a difficulty in discriminating between information that is perceived in the external world and information that is imagined. For example, you might imagine a voice conveying a message, but misattribute that voice as real, coming from another person.
![]() |
| Regions involved in reality monitoring overlap with areas dysfunctional in schizophrenia |
Thus, although there is much work to do before we can claim to understand the functions supported by anterior prefrontal cortex, evidence is mounting that one of its key roles may be to help us keep a grip on reality.



Having just returned from a 50 year reunion at my old school, I was immediately captured by the opening paragraph. Surely neuroscientists should take advantage of such reunions which must happen all over the place. Imagine some of us had no contact whatever for 50 years and yet fell together talking in a most natural way. It struck me that the reminiscences were all about people and social events. There was apparently an instant bond via joint memories. Also people have remained remarkably the same in temperament and outlook. Almost all have been very successful in life - at least those who turned up. Comments were something like "we can't pretend to each other... " and this reminded me of the intriguing gift of 'common knowledge' that is everyone knows that everyone knows. I call it a gift because it extends the limits of our cognitive abilities - over and above what each individual can do, remember and tell on his/her own.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jon, for this highly accessible and instructive update on your work.
Hi Jon, If the question is "how does the brain do reality monitoring?", how can the answer be "the anterior prefrontal cortex"? Surely a category error. I'm afraid I'm not yet disabused of the notion that, wrt cog psych, fMRI remains a long and very expensive promissary note.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much, Uta. You're absolutely right that high-school reunions would be a great way of exploring these issues but, as you say, I don't think anyone has really utilised them. There's the work from Harry Bahrick in the 1970s on memory for names of people from high-school yearbook photos, but very little on very long-term shared event memory that I'm aware of.
ReplyDeleteOne interesting paper that discusses these issues is:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389041707000307
But I agree it's an untapped resource by cognitive neuroscientists!
Mike: Thanks for your comment; I know your views on fMRI well! If that is the question, then you're of course right that the answer can't be as simple as the one you mention. I'd encourage you to read some of the papers I link to, which might not convince you about fMRI, but might at least disabuse you of the notion that I think simple answers are likely to be useful in improving our understanding of such complex abilities.
Thanks, Jon.
ReplyDeleteThe question is about fMRI's capability of answering the How? question of the post's title, regardless of whether that answer is simple or complex. I'm sure we can both agree it's likely to be complex. But the complexity of the answer is an issue that is orthogonal to that of the means by which the question is addressed.
So the papers to which you refer might not convince me about fMRI. Probably right. My question is, though, do they convince you about fMRI?
Let me say, too, that I can think of few people better than you to investigate the question. Right person, wrong (and v expensive) technique!
Mike, you asked how the answer can be "the anterior prefrontal cortex". If you're really asking how can the answer be anything to do with the brain, then that's a different question. My own view is similar to Rik Henson's that, if done right, cog neuro can provide dependent variables that can help differentiate between cognitive theories and generate new hypotheses.
ReplyDeleteHere's a fuller account of our work in this area, describing the theory derived largely from fMRI data that Paul Burgess and several of us have been contemplating:
http://www.psychol.cam.ac.uk/memlab/pubs/Simons2009%20chapter.pdf
Anyone who doesn't think fMRI can contribute anything useful won't be convinced by any of this of course. See comment stream on previous post! http://j.mp/fFdLSb
Fully agree with Uta's point. I recently had the privilege of witnessing a reunion between two people who had not met for 79 years, and I wasn't sure that the basic processes at work were any different to, say, a recent reunion of mine with an old friend from 20 years ago.
ReplyDeleteHi Jon, I really enjoyed this. I'm always interested in the implications of your work for schizophrenia, and this sets out the hypothesis very clearly. However, I'd caution that it's not just a functional abnormality, but a clear structural change in BA10 that is seen in Sz. This is present in both patients and never-affected first degree relatives (see e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2390785/?tool=pubmed Figure 1D - though it didn't survive statistical correction in this paper at the whole brain level, but I expect it would if they had used SVC). Do you think such structural abnormalities might confound the interpretation of the fMRI data from your colleagues in SF?
ReplyDeleteThanks for this, Jon. When I last did a good search of the scz imaging literature, there seemed to be a disjunction between the findings of functional and structural studies. The former pretty consistently implicated BA10 along with thalamus and cerebellum, whereas the latter were much more variable, with dorsolateral prefrontal and medial temporal areas the focus, among other areas. I hadn't come across the study you mention, though, so thanks for flagging it up. I guess what is needed is a study comparing functional and structural analyses of the same patients. Of course, with such a heterogenous disorder, it's unlikely there's going to be one region or one set of regions consistently implicated in every single patient.
ReplyDelete