![]()
|
| |
Raymond
Kesner, Ph.D. |
|
Professor
Department of Psychology
University of Utah |
| |
| |
 |
|
Contact Information |
| |
Raymond
Kesner , Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
University of Utah
380 South 1530 East, Room 502
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 -0251
Office: 1033 Social And Behavioral Science Building
Office Phone: (801) 581-7430
E-mail: rpkesner@behsci.utah.edu
Fax: (801) 581-5841 |
| |
|
Education |
| |
| Ph.D. |
University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Psychology, 1965) |
| B.S. |
Wayne
State University (Psychology, 1962) |
|
| |
|
Reseach Interests |
| |
Theoretical
and applied aspects associated with the neurobiological basis of learning
and memory.
Development of animal models paralleling mnemonic symptomatology in
brain damaged patients.
Statement
In general, I am interested in the neurobiological basis of learning
and memory in animals and humans focussing on applied and theoretical
issues. From a theoretical perspective, I have emphasized the importance
of a multidimensional model of memory pointing to the existence of
differential neuroanatomical contributions to different forms of memory.
More specifically, I have proposed that memory organization is based
on functionally separate but interdependent attributes of memory,
such as space, time, response, affect and sensory perception in animals
and humans. In humans, I have added a language attribute. In this
attribute model it is assumed that any specific memory is not only
composed of a set of attributes, but is further organized into a data-based
memory system akin to episodic or working memory and a knowledge-based
memory akin to semantic or reference memory. Furthermore, it is proposed
that different neural regions and neural circuits subserve these different
memory attributes. Thusfar, tests have been devised to measure specific
data-based or working memory experiments for each of the proposed
attributes and it can be shown that within the data-based memory system
these attributes can operate independent of each other as observed
in a 4-way dissociation among these attributes. For example, the hippocampus
mediates primarily spatial location and temporal attributes, the caudate
nucleus mediates primarily response attributes, the medial extrastriate
mediates primarily visual object information as an example of sensory-perceptual
attributes, and the amygdala mediates primarily affect attributes.
It appears that each attribute is represented in memory not only by
a single neural region, but rather by an extensive neural circuit.
For example, for spatial location memory the entorhinal cortex, parietal
cortex, and infra- and prelimbic cortex also play important roles.
Similarly, for response and temporal memory the anterior cingulate
cortex is important, for visual object memory the perirhinal cortex
and pre- and infralimbic cortex are important, and for affect memory
the agranular insular cortex can be shown to be important. These latter
observations suggest that one needs to analyze the neural circuits
that mediate each attribute. If indeed there are different neural
regions that represent, for example, spatial location information
in memory, then it is important to uncover whether these neural regions
contribute differentially to the representation of spatial location
information.
There are a number of possibilities that I am exploring. First, it
is possible that different neural regions contribute to spatial location
memory by representing different features of spatial location, such
as allocentric spatial distance, egocentric spatial distance, and
egocentric direction. Second, it is possible that different neural
regions contribute to spatial location memory by processing different
dynamic components of memory, such as selective attention, working
memory, short-term consolidation, long-term consolidation, and retrieval.
The same neurobiology of attribute model has also been used to study
neural circuits associated with memory in humans. Hypoxic subjects
with hippocampal damage based on MRI data, subjects with hippocampus
and surrounding cortex or hippocampus and amygdala and surrounding
cortex damage, frontal cortex damage, and Alzheimer's patients with
hippocampus and neocortical damage have been tested. New tests have
been generated that are more analogous to the tests that are administered
to rats, so that it is easier to make comparisons between rats and
humans in terms of attribute memory representation. Even though parallels
are not always found, it is remarkable how homologous brain structures
have similar mnemonic function. Thusfar, it has been shown that the
right hippocampus is important for memory for spatial location, spatial
distance, new geographical information, duration and temporal order
information, whereas the left hippocampus is important for linguistic
information, i.e. memory for words and the order of words in nonmeaningful
sentences. The amygdala is important for affect as measured by a liking
test. The frontal cortex is important for memory for durationa and
temporal order.
Recently, the emphasis of the present research is that one needs to
evaluate the role of the hippocampus, a brain area that is very important
for memory, in terms of the contribution of its specific subregions
rather than treating the hippocampus as a single entity. Furthermore,
one needs to understand the interactions and dissociations among these
different subregions and to understand the input and output pathways
to further uncover how the hippocampus supports so many multiple processes,
such as spatial and temporal pattern separation, spatial and temporal
pattern completion based on flexibility, the development of arbitrary
associations, especially involving time and space, sequence learning,
encoding and retrieval of information , short- and intermediate-term
memory and promotion of consolidation of new information. Also, understanding
the input and output function of the hippocampus allows for the study
of interactions and dissociation with other brain regions, such as
prefrontal cortex, entorhinal cortex, and parietal cortex. This research
promotes a very important and necessary interplay between the development
of computational models and behavioral analysis of hippocampal function.
Previous research has shown that some of the behavioral results were
predicted based on the extant computational models, but new findings
are challenging the computational modelers to refine some of their
assumptions. This is especially the case in processing of temporal
information. All of the above mentioned processes have emerged as
important for the functions of different subregions of the hippocampus
and all these processes are essential for successful learning of new
information and for efficient ability to retrieve previously learned
information |
| |
|
Selected Publications |
| |
Rolls,
E. T., & Kesner, R. P. (2006). A computational
theory of hippocampal function, and empirical tests of the theory.
Progress in Neurobiology ,79.1-48
Kesner, R. P., & Hopkins, R. O. (2006). Mnemonic
functions of the hippocampus: A comparison between animals and humans.
Biological Psychology, 73, 3-18.
Goodrich-Hunsaker, N.J., Hunsaker, M. R., & Kesner, R.
P. (2005). Dissociating the role of the parietal cortex and
dorsal hippocampus for spatial information processing. Behavioral
Neuroscience, 119, 1307-1315.
Kesner, R. P., Hunsaker, M. R. & Gilbert P. E.
(2005). The role of CA1 in the acquisition of an object-trace-odor
paired associate task. Behavioral Neuroscience, 119, 781-786.
Gold, E., Kesner, R. P. (2005). The role of the CA3
subregion of the dorsal hippocampus in spatial pattern completion
in the rat. Hippocampus, 15, 808-814.
Kesner, R. P., Hunsaker, M. R., & Gilbert, P.
E. (2005). The role of CA1 in the acquisition of an object-trace-odor
paired associate task. Behavioral Neuroscience, 119, 781-786.
Kesner, R. P., Lee, I., & Gilbert, P. (2004).
A behavioral assessment of hippocampal function based on a subregional
analysis. Reviews in Neurosciences, 15, 333-351.
Kesner, R. P., & Rogers, L. (2004). An analysis
of independence and interactions of brain substrates that subserve
multiple attributes, memory systems, and underlying processes. Neurobiology
of Learning and Memory, 82, 199-215.
Lee, I., & Kesner, R. P. (2002). Differential
contribution of NMDA receptors in hippocampal subregions to spatial
working memory. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 162-168. |
| |
|
Home & Cross Area Specializations |
| |
| Cognitive
Clinical Neuropsychology |
| |
|
Graduate Students |
| |
David
Vago
Jason Rogers
John Churchwell
David Daberkow |
| |
|
