Downloaded from learnmem.cshlp.org on August 17, 2012 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Infantile amnesia: A neurogenic hypothesis
Sheena A. Josselyn and Paul W. Frankland
Learn. Mem. 2012 19: 423-433
Access the most recent version at doi:10.1101/lm.021311.110

References
Email alerting
serviceThis article cites 149 articles, 27 of which can be accessed free at:
http://learnmem.cshlp.org/content/19/9/423.full.html#ref-list-1
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the
top right corner of the article or click here

To subscribe to Learning & Memory go to:
http://learnmem.cshlp.org/subscriptions© 2012 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Downloaded from learnmem.cshlp.org on August 17, 2012 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Review

Infantile amnesia: A neurogenic hypothesis
Sheena A. Josselyn1,2,3,4 and Paul W. Frankland1,2,3
1

Program in Neurosciences & Mental Health, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada M5G 1X8; 2Department of Physiology,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada M5S 1A8; 3Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada M5S 1A8
In the late 19th Century, Sigmund Freud described the phenomenon in which people are unable to recall events from earlychildhood as infantile amnesia. Although universally observed, infantile amnesia is a paradox; adults have surprisingly few
memories of early childhood despite the seemingly exuberant learning capacity of young children. How can these findings
be reconciled? The mechanisms underlying this form of amnesia are the subject of much debate. Psychological/cognitive
theories assert that the ability to maintain detailed, declarative-like memories in the long term correlates with the development of language, theory of mind, and/or sense of “self.” However, the finding that experimental animals also show infantile amnesia suggests that this phenomenon cannot be explained fully in purely human terms. Biological explanations ofinfantile amnesia suggest that protracted postnatal development of key brain regions important for memory interfereswith stable long-term memory storage, yet they do not clearly specify which particular aspects of brain maturation are causally related to infantile amnesia. Here, we propose a hypothesis of infantile amnesia that focuses on one specific aspect of
postnatal brain development—the continued addition of new neurons to the hippocampus. Infants (humans, nonhumanprimates, and rodents) exhibit high levels of hippocampal neurogenesis and an inability to form lasting memories.
Interestingly, the decline of postnatal neurogenesis levels corresponds to the emergence of the ability to form stablelong-term memory. We propose that high neurogenesis levels negatively regulate the ability to form enduring memories,
most likely by replacing synaptic connections in preexisting hippocampal memory circuits.

We are the proud parents of a little girl who just turned 2 yr of age.
To celebrate this milestone, we threw a party with all the trimmings (Elmo birthday cards, presents, sparkly birthday hats, anda chocolate cake topped with two pink candles). When we
dimmed the lights and lit the candles, the birthday girl burst
into tears. This event seems permanently etched in our memories,
and we can vividly recall many details of the not-so-happy birthday. Our daughter remembered parts of this event, too, at least fora day or two (the next day, she exclaimed “no candles” while shaking her head vigorously). Have we scarred our daughter for life?
Perhaps. But if she is like the rest of us, she will not explicitly remember the “birthday candle incident” when she is an adult.
This phenomenon, in which adults are unable to remember specific events from our first few years of life, was named infantile amnesia by Sigmund Freud over 100 yr ago (Freud 1900, 1914). Whatis particularly intriguing about this phenomenon is that adults
have very few memories of early childhood despite the seemingly
exuberant learning capacity of young children. How can these
seemingly disparate observations be reconciled? Here, we outline
a novel neurobiological hypothesis of infantile (or childhood)amnesia that proposes that the loss of memory in infants andchildren is due to high levels of postnatal neurogenesis in the
hippocampus.

ecdotal evidence has been validated by over a century of empiricalresearch, conducted across cultures using different techniques(Miles 1893; Henri and Henri 1895; Howe and Courage 1993;
Nelson 1993; Peterson 2002; Wang 2003; Bauer 2006, 2007). Of
course, much of the experimental evidence for infantile amnesia
comes from retrospective studies (in which adults are asked to recall their first memories) which are laden with pitfalls and interpretive difficulties. Despite this, a strikingly similar pattern ofresults has emerged across these many studies: adults generally
cannot remember events that occurred in the first 2 –3 yr of life.
In addition to this frank amnesia for early infancy, there is a second phase of infantile amnesia in which adults recall very few
memories from ages 3– 7 yr (Rubin 1982; Wetzler and Sweeney
1986; Rubin 2000; Peterson 2002). Therefore, infantile amnesia
is not an all-or-none phenomenon, and there is no abrupt developmental transition from “no memory” to “memory.” Instead, infantile amnesia describes the absence of memory for eventsoccurring within the first 2 –3 yr of life and “spotty” memory forevents occurring from 3– 7 yr of age (Pillemer and White 1989;
Bruce et al. 2005; Fig. 1).

Can infantile amnesia be attributed to normal forgetting?
In adults, forgetting can be described as a linear function of thetime since an event. Because there is a long delay between eventsacquired during infancy and potential recall in adulthood, it
might be expected that these early life events are simply forgotten.
To examine this, Rubin and colleagues sampled adults’ memories
across the life span (Rubin 1982, 2000; Peterson 2002). Subjects
were given cue words (e.g., bicycle) and asked to provide a specificmemory related to the cue word and estimate their age at the timeof the event. The resulting distribution of memories clearly
showed the two components of infantile amnesia (0 –3 yr ofage and 3– 7 yr of age). Importantly, subjects reported far fewer
memories for events that occurred between birth and 6 –7 yr ofage than would be predicted by simply extrapolating the adult forgetting curve (Wetzler and Sweeney 1986). Therefore, forgetting a

Infantile amnesia—the phenomenon
Adults have difficulty recalling memories of earlychildhood, even though very young children arecapable of forming memories
Freud developed his theory of infantile amnesia based on the observation that his adult patients rarely recalled memories of theirfirst years of life (before 6 – 8 yr of age) (Freud 1900, 1914). This an4

Corresponding author
E-mail sheena.josselyn@sickkids.ca
Article is online at http://www.learnmem.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/lm.021311.110.

19:423 –433 # 2012 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
ISSN 1549-5485/12; www.learnmem.org

423

Learning & MemoryDownloaded from learnmem.cshlp.org on August 17, 2012 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Hippocampal neurogenesis and memory

memory with the passage of time alone cannot explain infantileamnesia.

ger infants. Support for age-related changes in childhood forgetting derives from several findings. For instance, Rovee-Collier
and colleagues showed that memory retention increases linearlywith the age of the child at the time of training (Rovee-Collier
1997; Rovee-Collier and Cuevas 2009; Fig. 2). The absolute difference in retention was striking—although 2-mo-old infants exhibited memory that lasted 24 h, 18-mo-old infants exhibited
retention for as long as 13 wk. Because all infants were trained
to the same criterion, the authors concluded that the age-relatedchanges in memory retention were independent of possible differences in the original encoding of the information.
A similar pattern of results—that older children remember
for longer than younger children—has been observed across several tasks, including deferred imitation (Barr et al. 1996; Herbert and
Hayne 2000; Carver and Bauer 2001; Bauer 2007), visual paired
comparison (Fantz 1956; Herbert and Hayne 2000; Morgan and
Hayne 2006a,b, 2011), and autobiographical memory (Ornstein
et al. 1997; van Abbema and Bauer 2005; Tustin and Hayne
2010) tests. Together, these findings converge to show that, although young children can acquire memories, they forget fasterthan older children. This faster forgetting is independent of thetask used to measure memory and is argued to be independentof differences in memory encoding. Intriguingly, rodents exhibit
a strikingly similar age-dependent amnesia.

Can infants form declarative memories?

Infantile amnesia is recapitulated in rodent species

What types of memories are lost in infantile amnesia? In adultmemory research, different theoretical distinctions have been
proposed to delineate different types of memory; the two mostcommon categories are declarative versus nondeclarative memory(Squire 1994) or explicit versus implicit memory (Graf andSchacter 1985). Implicit memory refers to the unconscious learning that is expressed by changes in task performance as the resultof experience. Testing this type of memory does not require participants to verbally declare things. In contrast, declarative/explicit
memory refers to the conscious recollection of facts and events.
While many experiences during infancy implicitly impact later
life (e.g., Hackman et al. 2010), infantile amnesia typically refers
to the absence of declarative memories from this period.
The capacity to form and verbally recall declarative memories
gradually emerges as an infant develops (from 24–36 mo of age)
(Eisenberg 1985; Peterson and McCabe 1987; Miller and Sperry
1988; Hudson 1991; McCabe and Peterson 1991; Hudson et al.
1992, 1995; Harley and Reese 1999; Peterson et al. 1999;
Peterson 2002). For instance, 3-yr-old children accurately recount“important” life events (a trip to McDonald’s) when prompted(Nelson and Gruendel 1981). Even in the absence of such prompting, children verbally recall specific event/autobiographical memories. For instance, Nelson eavesdropped on the “crib talk” (i.e.,talking to oneself alone before sleep) of her 2.5-yr-old daughter,
who clearly described a unique episode (buying a doll) that was
not rehearsed with, or structured by, her parents (Nelson 1989;
Harley and Reese 1999; Nelson and Fivush 2004). Together, theseand other studies are remarkable in that they reveal that children
form and verbally report event memories, yet these same memories are inaccessible when these children become adults. If thesetypes of memories can be formed, what is their fate?

Some of the earliest studies of infantile amnesia in rodents wereconducted by Campbell and colleagues, starting in the 1960s(Campbell and Campbell 1962; Campbell et al. 1968, 1974;
Coulter et al. 1976; Stehouwer and Campbell 1980). These researchers trained rats of different ages (18- to 100-d old) in an aversively motivated place discrimination task and tested memory
retention 0, 7, 21, or 42 d later (Campbell and Campbell 1962).
All groups of rats showed perfect (or near perfect) retention if tested immediately following training, indicating that rats of all ages

Figure 1. Infantile amnesia in humans. Distribution of autobiographicalmemories from the first decade of life showing two phases of infantileamnesia. Values (mean number of memories per yr) are approximate
and based on Rubin and Schulkind (1997). Participants (20, 35, and 70
yr of age) reported very few memories before the age of three. The
number of memories reported to have occurred from the ages of 3 –7
yr increased linearly and leveled off from 7 – 10 yr of age.

Figure 2. Memory retention increases gradually with age of children.
Rovee-Collier and colleagues used a mobile conjugate reinforcementtask (in which infants learn to kick their foot in order to rotate an overheadmobile) to assess learning and memory in young infants (2- to 7-mo-olds)
and a variant of this task (in which infants learn to press a lever to move a
toy train) in older infants (6- to 18-mo-olds). These researchers argue thatthese tasks also tap into declarative memory in infants (Rovee-Collier1997). When infants of different ages (ranging from 2 to 18 mo) aretrained to the same criterion in the mobile (open circles) or train(closed circles) task, the duration of memory retention increases linearly
as a function of age. Immediate retention was equivalent across all
ages. However, young infants show memory retention for only a few
days, whereas older infants show longer memory retention on a comparable train task. Importantly, at 6 mo of age, retention on these two
operant tasks is equivalent. Based on data from Rovee-Collier (1999)
and with permission of SAGE Publications # 1999.

Older children remember longer
One predominant view is that, although children can learn andremember information for a short period of time, these memories
are quickly forgotten or become otherwise inaccessible (Bauer
2007; Rovee-Collier and Cuevas 2009). That is, given equivalentlevels of encoding, older infants remember for longer than younwww.learnmem.org

424

Learning & MemoryDownloaded from learnmem.cshlp.org on August 17, 2012 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Hippocampal neurogenesis and memory

Impairment in memory encoding, storage, or recall

formed equivalent place memories. However, the ability to retain
this information depended upon the age of the rats at the time oftraining. Whereas the youngest rats (18 d old, infants) showed
rapid forgetting, rats that were 54 d old or older at the time oftraining (adults) showed perfect memory 42 d later (Fig. 3).
This core finding—that memory persistence is proportional
to age at the time of training—has been replicated across a broad
range of tasks, including conditioned suppression (Campbell andCampbell 1962), passive avoidance (Feigley and Spear 1970;
Schulenburg et al. 1971; Campbell et al. 1974), active avoidance(Kirby 1963; Klein and Spear 1969; Campbell et al. 1974), appetitive discrimination (Campbell et al. 1968), contextual fear conditioning (Rudy and Morledge 1994; Weber et al. 2006), novel
object recognition (Anderson et al. 2004), and water maze
(Brown and Kraemer 1997). Importantly, each of these tasks
uses stimuli with different properties and has different performance demands, indicating that this pattern of results is generalized across many memory tasks. Therefore, infantile amnesia is arobust, and very likely, universal cross-species phenomenon.

Information processing theories postulate that infantile amnesia
results from impaired memory encoding, storage, and/or retrieval.
Although it makes intuitive sense that if a normal memory is neveracquired by an infant, then this memory cannot be recalled when
the child reaches adulthood, experimental evidence from both human and rodent studies does not fully support this notion. For example, in the early infantile amnesia experiments in rats, both therate of acquisition as well as initial memory expression (tested
shortly after training) were equivalent in infant and adult rats
(Kirby 1963; Feigley and Spear 1970; Campbell et al. 1974), suggesting that initial differences in learning and/or memory expression could not account for the accelerated forgetting observed ininfant rats. Moreover, even when infant rats were overtrained ina passive avoidance task, they still showed more rapid forgetting
than adult rats (Feigley and Spear 1970; Schulenburg et al. 1971).
Other explanations of infantile amnesia focus on memory retrieval and postulate that the memories formed in childhood arepermanently stored and always exist, but that these memories
simply cannot be accessed during adulthood (Hayne and RoveeCollier 1995). For instance, Freud believed that our earliest memories were acquired and stored in pristine condition but actively
repressed due to their emotionally and sexually charged content(Freud 1899). In this way, Freud was perhaps the first (and strongest) proponent of the “memory retrieval deficit” hypothesis of
infantile amnesia. Although Freud’s notion of repression has
been largely discounted, the retrieval deficit hypothesis of infantileamnesia is consistent with findings that memories are maximallyrecalled when the retrieval conditions (both internal and external)
closely match the conditions at encoding, similar to state-dependency (Tulving and Thompson 1973; Tulving 1983). Because
adults can never recapitulate the conditions of infancy, this theory holds, we cannot recall memories acquired during this time.

Theories of infantile amnesia
Why are memories acquired in infancy beyond recall in adulthood? This question has provoked much debate and a diverse
range of theories have been put forward to explain this phenomenon. As these theories approach infantile amnesia from different
research traditions, they are pitched at different levels of analyses(but are not necessarily mutually exclusive).

Human cognitive/psychological theories
Human psychological theories emphasize that the ability to form
enduring memories (the offset of infantile amnesia) in humans
coincides with emergence of developmental milestones, such as
the acquisition of a sense of “self” (Howe and Courage 1993), theory of mind (Perner and Ruffman 1995), or language (Nelson
1993; Harley and Reese 1999; Simcock and Hayne 2002).
Certainly, verbal reminiscing may aid memory retention, andthe concept of self would help humans encode and store enduringpersonal memories. However, given that infantile amnesia is observed in nonhuman species, it is unlikely that this phenomenon
can be explained fully using purely human concepts.

Biological theories: the ‘immature brain’ vs. ‘ongoingbrain maturation’
Biological or neurological accounts of infantile amnesia stress two
closely related ideas: either that infantile amnesia occurs because
key structures for memory formation and storage are insufficiently mature at the time of memory formation to process these memories (“immature brain” theories) or, alternatively, that the very
process of ongoing maturation interferes with stable memory consolidation (“ongoing brain maturation” theories). Support forthese biological theories comes from findings that, althoughmuch of the human brain is fully formed at birth, the two key regions for declarative memory, the cortex and hippocampus, show
protracted postnatal development (Eriksson et al. 1998; Knothet al. 2010; Sierra et al. 2011). Some theories falling into the “immature brain” category posit infantile amnesia results from thecortex not yet being “online” in infants (Pillemer and White
1989; Nelson 1997, 2000). Indeed, although all six layers of thehuman cortex may be observed by the seventh gestational month,
other important aspects of cortical maturity (e.g., adult levels ofsynaptic density, myelination, etc.) are not realized fully until puberty and beyond (Huttenlocher and Dabholkar 1997; Giedd et al.
1999; Bauer 2008). The rapid myelination that occurs in the firstyear in humans may account for the age-related changes in processing speed observed in several memory tasks (Richmond andNelson 2007). That is, the finding that older infants encode
some types of information faster than younger infants (e.g.,
Rose et al. 1982; Hayne 2004) might be due to faster information
processing resulting from more efficient transmission of electricalimpulses with increasing myelination. Whether changes in myelination (or other slowly maturing aspects of cortical integrity) are

Figure 3. Infantile amnesia in rats. Rats trained at a young age (P18)show rapid forgetting, whereas as rats trained at later time points showmuch longer memory retention on an aversively motivated place discrimination task. Importantly, all rats (regardless of age at training) showed
intact memory if tested immediately following training, indicating thatrats of all ages formed equivalent place memories. Based on data (nowin the public domain) from Campbell and Campbell (1962).
www.learnmem.org

425

Learning & MemoryDownloaded from learnmem.cshlp.org on August 17, 2012 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Hippocampal neurogenesis and memorycausally related to infantile amnesia, however, remains to be
determined.
In addition to the cortex, the hippocampus, and especiallythe dentate gyrus (DG) region of the hippocampus, shows protracted postnatal development in many species, including humans(e.g., Eriksson et al. 1998; Knoth et al. 2010; Sierra et al. 2011).
For instance, in humans, although the cytoarchitecture of the hippocampus is formed by 24 –25 wk of gestation (Humphrey 1967;
Seress et al. 2001) and the overall structure of the hippocampal formation largely resembles the adult by the end of the second trimester (Abraham et al. 2001), new neurons continue to be added to the
DG layer of the hippocampus well after birth (Eriksson et al. 1998;
Knoth et al. 2010; Sierra et al. 2011). Other “immature brain” theories suggest that this prolonged hippocampal development canaccount for infantile amnesia (Alvarado and Bachevalier 2000;
Richmond and Nelson 2007). Indeed, the protracted developmentof the hippocampus, particularly the DG, after birth in monkeys is
consistent with their emerging ability to form and retain episodiclike memories (Alvarado and Bachevalier 2000; Payne et al. 2010).
For instance, although infant macaque monkeys (4 wk of age) show
the ability to learn and form a memory (novelty preference) in thevisual paired-comparison task (Gunderson and Sackett 1984;
Gunderson and Swartz 1985; Bachevalier et al. 1993), memory
stability gradually increases with age (from 1.5 to 18 mo)(Zeamer et al. 2010).
Distinct from these “immature brain” accounts are “ongoingbrain maturation” accounts emphasizing that age-dependent/ontogenetic changes in memory persistence play out against a rapidly evolving brainscape, and it is the process of maturation itself(rather than the maturational state per se) that interferes withthe storage of memories formed during infancy. For example:

Figure 4. The neurogenic hypothesis of infantile amnesia. Levels ofneurogenesis (black) and memory stability/retention (gray) are inversely
related: The inability to form stable, persistent memories in early life coincides with a period of high neurogenesis, whereas the ability to form
stable, persistent memories only emerges at later developmental
periods as the rate of neurogenesis declines.

rons disrupt an established memory? We suggest that the integration of these “new neurons” degrades existing memories by either
increasing the excitability (and therefore instability) of hippocampal memory networks or replacing synaptic connections inpreexisting hippocampal memory circuits. This neurogenic hypothesis of infantile amnesia builds on the original ideas ofCampbell and Spears (1972) and integrates contemporary viewsof how ongoing neurogenesis impacts hippocampal circuit function and information storage (Chambers et al. 2004; Deisseroth
et al. 2004; Meltzer et al. 2005; Wiskott et al. 2006; Treves et al.
2008). Below, we review some existing evidence for this neurogenic hypothesis of infantile amnesia before outlining two direct testsof the hypothesis.

“In the simplest sense, it seems quite possible that continued neurological development following the acquisition ofa learned response could act to either disrupt the memorystorage mechanism(s) or to block retrieval of previously
learned material.” [Campbell and Spear 1972, p. 225;emphasis added.]Circumstantial evidence for the neurogenic
hypothesis of infantile amnesia
Memory stability and neurogenesis are inversely
related: As hippocampal neurogenesis declines,
the ability to form stable memories emerges

The key idea here is that, while memory formation is more orless normal in infants, continued brain maturation after initial acquisition may interfere with stabilization or consolidation of thememory trace. This hypothesis was initially examined in rodent
studies where they either attempted to slow or accelerate brain
maturation during the retention delay (reasoning that slowing
maturation might counteract forgetting, whereas accelerating
brain maturation might promote forgetting). The challenge forthese early studies was that the tools available to manipulate brain
maturation were blunt (e.g., hormonal or neurotoxic manipulations designed to slow or accelerate maturation likely had many
off-target effects). Moreover, it was not clear whether specific or
general aspects of maturation should be targeted. For the mostpart, these early attempts to manipulate brain maturation and examine infantile amnesia ended in failure (Campbell 1984).
Here, we propose that one specific aspect of ongoing brain
maturation—the continued postnatal production of new neurons
in the hippocampus—regulates the ability to form enduring
hippocampus-dependent memories. As described above, in a variety of animals, including humans, new neurons continue to be
added to the hippocampus, a brain region generally agreed to beimportant for memory. Interestingly, the levels of neurogenesis
and memory stability are inversely related: The inability to form
stable, persistent memories in early life coincides with a periodof high neurogenesis, whereas the ability to form stable, persistentmemories only emerges at later developmental periods as the rateof neurogenesis declines (Fig. 4). How might the addition of neuwww.learnmem.org

Whereas in most brain regions, neurogenesis is largely completed
at birth, in the DG of the hippocampus, new neurons continue tobe added throughout development into adulthood. Once controversial (Rakic 2002), the idea that neurogenesis may persist
beyond birth is now accepted (Zhao et al. 2008). In the mammalian brain (including the human brain) (Eriksson et al. 1998;
Knoth et al. 2010; Sierra et al. 2011), adult neurogenesis is limited
to two regions: (1) the subventricular zone (SVZ) of the lateral ventricle (new neurons migrate from here along the rostral migratory
stream to populate the olfactory bulb); and (2) the subgranularzone (SGZ) of the hippocampus (new neurons migrate the shortdistance from the SGZ to the inner granule cell layer [GCL] of
the DG) (Zhao et al. 2008). Neurogenesis outside of these regions
may occur following injury but is otherwise negligible under nonpathological conditions.
While postnatal hippocampal neurogenesis is regulated by anumber of factors, it is most profoundly regulated by age (Seki andArai 1995; Kuhn et al. 1996; Piatti et al. 2006): Across species, neuron production in the hippocampus typically peaks soon after
birth and steadily declines thereafter. For example, in rats, therate of hippocampal neurogenesis decreases by half between 1
and 2 mo of age, and by 18 mo of age, rates of neurogenesis are100-fold lower than initial levels (Seki and Arai 1995; Fig. 5A).
Similarly, although most neurons in the nonhuman primate hippocampal formation are generated prenatally (Nowakowski andRakic 1981; Eckenhoff and Rakic 1988; Arnold and Trojanowski
426

Learning & MemoryDownloaded from learnmem.cshlp.org on August 17, 2012 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Hippocampal neurogenesis and memory(21 d), precocial rodents (such as guineapigs) have much longer gestation periods(65 d) (Altman and Das 1967). Unlike
rats, guinea pigs are able to walk and see
at birth, suggesting that guinea pigs areborn with a more developed brain.
Consistent with this, whereas there is an600% increase in brain weight frombirth to full maturity in rats, the corresponding increase is only 60% in guinea pigs (Dobbing and Sands 1979). In
landmark experiments, Campbell andcolleagues asked whether the guinea
pigs’ relative neurological maturity at
Figure 5. Rates of hippocampal neurogenesis decrease with age in both rats and humans. (A) In rats,birth might be associated with a precothe rate of hippocampal neurogenesis (as determined by the number of NCAM+ cells) decreases by half
cious ability to form persistent memories
between 1 and 2 mo of age, and by 18 mo of age, rates of neurogenesis are 100-fold lower than initial(Campbell et al. 1974). These researcherslevels (adapted from Seki and Arai 1995 with permission of Wolters Kluwer Health # 1995). A similar
decay in hippocampal neurogenesis rate is observed in (B) monkeys (determined by the number oftrained rats and guinea pigs of different+
Ki67 cells) (adapted from Jabès et al. 2010 with permission of John Wiley and Sons # 2010) andages in an aversively motivated place dis+(C ) humans (determined by the number of doublecortin cells) (Knoth et al. 2010).
crimination task and tested memory retention across a 2-wk period. Bothyoung (15– 20 d old at the time of training) and older (25– 35 d old at the time of training) rats showed ro1996), postnatal neurogenesis is observed in the DG of macaquebust acquisition of this task and intact memory retention one day
monkeys (Gould et al. 1999; Kornack and Rakic 1999) and marmoafter training. However, younger rats showed forgetting across thesets (Gould et al. 1998). Recently, Jabès and colleagues (2010) sys2-wk retention period compared to the stable retention observed intematically examined postnatal hippocampal neurogenesis acrossadult rats. In stark contrast, guinea pigs did not show an agethe life-span of macaques. Using both exogenous (BrdU) and endependent difference in memory persistence. Remarkably,
dogenous (Ki67) markers of cell proliferation and stereological
5-d-old guinea pigs remembered just as well as adult (100-d-old)counting techniques, they found high levels of cell proliferation
guinea pigs up to 75 d after training (Fig. 6). A similar pattern of rein the monkey DG at birth through 3 mo of life, followed by ansults was observed when memory retention was examined using
intermediate level which persisted throughout the first year of
passive avoidance (Campbell et al. 1974).
life and beyond (Fig. 5B). Finally, although an equivalent systemThis difference in the ability of young rats and guinea pigs to
atic study of neurogenesis across the lifespan of humans has notform persistent memories directly mirrors differences in DG debeen conducted, a similar decay in the rate of hippocampal neurovelopment between the two rodent species: Whereas 80% ofgenesis is observed (Knoth et al. 2010). By staining post-mortem
granule cells are added to the DG in the first 2 wk after birth inhuman brain tissue for doublecortin, a protein that is predomithe rat, only 20% of granule cells are added during the first postnantly expressed in immature neurons, Knoth and colleagues
natal month in the guinea pig (Schlessinger et al. 1975; Guidi et al.
(2010) estimated there is an 100-fold reduction in neurogenesis2005). Therefore, the relative maturity of the DG (and lower levels
between 0 and 100 yr of age (Fig. 5C), a lifetime reduction in neuof neurogenesis) may permit the formation of stable memories inrogenesis rates that is remarkably similar to that observed in rats as
newborn guinea pigs. Of course, many other aspects of brain develwell as nonhuman primates.
opment both inside and outside of the hippocampus may also be
These age-dependent changes in neurogenesis exhibit remore advanced at birth in guinea pigs (e.g., white matter, denmarkably similar properties across species. For example, in thedritic arborization, etc.), and it is possible these may also contribadult rat, the number of new neurons generated per day in theute to memory stability in newborn guinea pigs. Nonetheless, theDG is roughly 2250, or 0.2% of the total number of neurons inlack of forgetting in newborn guinea pigs is consistent with thethe granule cell layer (Cameron and McKay 2001). In 5- toidea that lower levels of hippocampal neurogenesis facilitate
10-yr-old (adult) monkeys, roughly 1300 neurons per day are addmemory persistence.
ed to the DG, or 0.02% of the total number of neurons in the granule cell layer. Given the differences in lifespan between monkeys
and rats (the lifespan of a monkey is 20–30 yr compared to 2 –3
yr for rats), the overall contribution of postnatal neurogenesis in
Neurogenesis and degradation of existingthese two species is remarkably similar. Indeed, Jabès and colmemories: computational studies
leagues estimate that 40% of neurons are added to the monkey
Although postnatal (including adult) hippocampal neurogenesis
DG after birth. Together, these data suggest that postnatal neurorecapitulates many aspects of embryonic neurogenesis, postnatal
genesis could have a substantial impact on hippocampal circuit
neurogenesis is unique in that new neurons must integrate intofunction in rodents and primates, including humans.
an established hippocampal circuit. This integration may haveprofound effects on overall hippocampal circuit function.
Precocious guinea pigs do not show infantile amnesia
Experimental studies have predominantly focused on the anterograde effects of neurogenesis on memory—that is, examining theThat the decline in hippocampal neurogenesis levels in rats andimpact of manipulating neurogenesis levels on subsequent memprimates coincides with an emerging ability to form enduring
ory formation in adult animals (Shors et al. 2001; Creer et al. 2010;
memories raises the fascinating possibility that these two phenomDeng et al. 2010; Sahay et al. 2011a). However, computational apena are causally related. Although this has not been directly tested,
proaches have additionally emphasized the impact of adult neuthere is some evidence from comparative studies of memory in difrogenesis on already-stored information (or retrograde effects)
ferent rodent species that strengthens this connection. Whereas aland proposed that the addition of new neurons may degrade
tricial rodents (such as rats) have relatively brief gestation periods
www.learnmem.org

427

Learning & MemoryDownloaded from learnmem.cshlp.org on August 17, 2012 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Hippocampal neurogenesis and memory

Second, immature granule neurons
are more excitable than mature granuleneurons (Schmidt-Hieber et al. 2004; Geet al. 2007). Therefore, the addition of
new excitable neurons into hippocampal
circuits would result in an increase in
overall excitatory drive both within theDG (via recurrent DG networks) and indownstream CA3 networks (through direct mossy fiber connections). In order
to avoid the maladaptive consequencesof overexcitation (e.g., seizures), this increase in excitation would likely invoke
Figure 6. Cross-species evidence for the neurogenic hypothesis of infantile amnesia. (A) Altricial
homeostatic mechanisms that regulaterodents (rats) with relatively brief gestation periods (and higher levels of postnatal neurogenesis)
show evidence of infantile amnesia (younger rats forget sooner than older rats). (B) By contrast, preconeuronal and/or circuit excitability
cial rodents (guinea pigs) have much longer gestation periods (and relatively lower levels of postnatal(Karmarkar and Buonomano 2006).
neurogenesis) and show no evidence of infantile amnesia. In fact, 5-d-old guinea pigs remembered justSuch homeostatic changes may include
as well as adult (100-d-old) guinea pigs 75 d after either weak, moderate, or strong training in a placedecreasing the intrinsic excitability of
discrimination task. Adapted from Campbell et al. (1974).
DG/CA3 neurons (Desai et al. 1999;
Golowasch et al. 1999; Brickley et al.
2001) or neuron-wide synaptic rescaling(e.g., loss/endocytosis of synaptic GluA2 receptors) (Frohlich
existing memories (for review, see Aimone and Gage 2011). The
et al. 2008; Turrigiano 2008), which may eventually lead to the siidea that neurogenesis promotes memory degradation or forgetlencing of some synapses, thus compromising information storting echoes an earlier suggestion by Tsien and colleagues (Fengage (Meltzer et al. 2005).
et al. 2001) and, when levels of hippocampal neurogenesis are
Are sufficient numbers of new neurons being added to the exconsidered across the lifespan, may explain the rapid forgetting
isting hippocampal circuit to impact the fidelity of stored memoof infantile amnesia.
ries? In young adult rodents, several thousand new neurons are
These computational models typically use a simple, threegenerated daily (Cameron and McKay 2001). While not all oflayer architecture (an input [entorhinal cortex], middle [DG],
these new neurons survive, they still represent a sizable proporand output [CA3] layer), with neurogenesis modeled by either retion of all dentate granule cells. For example, in the 3-mo-old
placing mature neurons or adding new neurons to the middle DG
rat, new neurons (defined as ,8 wk of age) are estimated tolayer (Chambers et al. 2004; Deisseroth et al. 2004; Meltzer et al.
make up .25% of the entire granule cell population. This per2005; Wiskott et al. 2006). As mature dentate neurons constitutecentage drops with age, but even so, at 12 mo, new neurons likely
a critical component of the memory trace in these models, replacaccount for 5% of all dentate granule cells (Snyder and Cameroning these essential neurons (perhaps unsurprisingly) leads to2011). Each dentate granule cell contacts roughly 10– 15 CA3 pymemory degradation. However, results from experimental studies
ramidal neurons via large mossy fiber terminals (Acsady et al.
suggest that neurons that are committed to a memory trace may
1998). These specialized contacts ensure powerful and reliable firactually have a survival advantage (Leuner et al. 2004), suggestinging of downstream CA3 pyramidal neurons (Henze et al. 2002)
that these mature memory-committed neurons are not likely to be
and, therefore, even sparse activation of dentate granule cells
replaced. Moreover, in some computational models, memory loss
can influence the activity of a large proportion of hippocampal
is still predicted when new neurons are simply added to the cirCA3 neurons (Treves et al. 2008). In a similar vein, as new neurons
cuit, rather than replacing existing neurons (Deisseroth et al.
integrate into hippocampal circuitry, they likely make contacts
2004; Meltzer et al. 2005). This finding suggests that the integrawith a large number of CA3 target cells (in fact, adult-generated
tion of new neurons into an existing network may produce
granule cells may even make more contacts on target CA3 neurons
network-wide changes, leading to the degradation of alreadythan granule cells generated earlier on during embryonic or poststored information. Consistent with this degradation hypothesis,
natal development [Yasuda et al. 2011]). The establishment ofdecreasing adult hippocampal neurogenesis promotes, rather
these new synaptic connections necessarily alters the architecture
than disrupts, the long-lasting maintenance of hippocampal
of existing DG-CA3 networks, very likely leading to degradation
long-term potentiation in vivo (Kitamura et al. 2009).
(or loss) of information stored in those connections. It is, then,There may be at least two ways in which adding new neurons
reasonable to predict that the amount of memory loss would
might degrade existing memories. First, the integration of new
depend on levels of hippocampal neurogenesis. When levels areneurons necessarily alters the wiring of existing hippocampal
high (during infancy), a larger proportion of DG-CA3 synapses
networks. As memory fidelity likely depends on the precise spatiowould be impacted, leading to greater memory loss. In contrast,
temporal activation of hippocampal neurons, any changes in netwhen neurogenesis levels are greatly reduced (during adulthood),
work architecture would likely result in information loss. In thisfewer DG-CA3 synapses would be impacted by the integration ofregard, it is particularly interesting that the formation of de
new neurons, resulting in greater memory stability.
novo afferent and efferent synaptic connections is a competitive
process, with newborn neurons’ synaptic connections frequently
coexisting with, or even replacing, the synaptic connections of
Neurogenesis and degradation of existing
established neurons (Toni et al. 2007, 2008; Yasuda et al. 2011).
memories: experimental findings
Moreover, new neurons may have a competitive advantage overexisting neurons in terms of afferent and efferent synaptic
We hypothesize that memory instability in infants (infantile
connections (Kim et al. 2011). Therefore, the invasion of new neuamnesia) is due to high levels of hippocampal neurogenesis. Thisrons into a preexisting circuit may disrupt the integrity of previhypothesis predicts that increasing levels of neurogenesis alone
ously formed synapses, leading ultimately to the loss of storedin adult animals would be sufficient to destabilize existing memoinformation.
ries. Some indirect evidence for this prediction comes from thewww.learnmem.org

428

Learning & MemoryDownloaded from learnmem.cshlp.org on August 17, 2012 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Hippocampal neurogenesis and memory

examination of mice that are deficient for the synaptic protein
a-calcium/calmodulin kinase II (a-CaMKII+/2 mice) (Frankland
et al. 2001, 2004; Yamasaki et al. 2008). In adult a-CaMKII+/2
mice, there is a striking increase in the number of newborn
neurons in the DG [adult mutant mice show 53% more
BrdU-labeled (newborn) cells in the DG, as well as higher levels of
immature neuronal markers (PSA-NCAM or calretinin) comparedwith wild-type littermate mice]. Moreover, adult a-CaMKII+/2
mice also show an electrophysiological DG profile typically observed in infant wild-type rodents (e.g., increased intrinsic excitability and membrane resistance, reduced spike amplitude andspike number during sustained depolarization [Yamasaki et al.
2008]). Interestingly, in these adult mice with high levels of hippocampal neurogenesis, memory stability is supremely compromised. Adult a-CaMKII+/2 mice are able to form new spatial andcontextual memories, but memory retention is severely impaired(Frankland et al. 2001, 2004).
While these data are consistent with the idea that high levelsof hippocampal neurogenesis promote forgetting, nonetheless,the a-CaMKII mutation produces other alterations (e.g., impaired
cortical plasticity [Frankland et al. 2001] and infradian activity
patterns [Yamasaki et al. 2008]) that could also impair memory
consolidation. Additional studies examined the impact of transiently increasing neurogenesis on the stability of an alreadyformed memory in adult mice. For example, it is well-known
that environmental enrichment robustly increases neurogenesis
in adult rodents. However, this enhancement is attenuated inmice with a forebrain deletion of presenilin-1 (PS-1-deficientmice) (Feng et al. 2001). Consistent with the idea that there is atrade-off between levels of neurogenesis and memory stability,
when PS-1-deficient mice and their wild-type littermates were environmentally enriched following training in a contextual feartask, PS-1-deficient mice (with lower levels of neurogenesis overthe 1-mo retention delay) showed stronger memory than wildtype mice. Kitamura and colleagues reported a closely related finding (Kitamura et al. 2009). Voluntary exercise—which also robustly increases hippocampal neurogenesis in adult rodents—
regulated the dependence of a contextual fear memory on the hippocampus. While expression of contextual fear memories initiallydepends on the hippocampus, a few weeks following training,
context fear memory can be expressed independently of the hippocampus (Kim and Fanselow 1992; but see Nadel andMoscovitch 1997; Sutherland and Lehmann 2011). This shift
from a hippocampus-dependent to hippocampus-independent
memory appears to be accelerated when neurogenesis is increased(Kitamura et al. 2009), consistent with the idea that increased
neurogenesis facilitates the clearance of the memory from the hippocampus. Therefore, together these studies provide some circumstantial support for the idea that integration of new granulecells into hippocampal circuitry may promote the degradation
and/or clearance of existing information from the hippocampus(Feng et al. 2001; Deisseroth et al. 2004; Inokuchi 2011).

mizing potential off-target effects (Dupret et al. 2008; Yu et al.
2008; Deng et al. 2009; Sahay et al. 2011b).

Does increasing neurogenesis in adult animals after
memory formation increase forgetting?
Making the hippocampus ‘infantile’ in anotherwise adult mouse
Our hypothesis is that infants cannot form long-lasting memories
because of high levels of neurogenesis, which promotes the degradation/clearance of memories soon after they are acquired. Thishypothesis predicts that transiently increasing hippocampal neurogenesis after memory formation in adult mice will promoteforgetting of newly acquired information (Fig. 7A). Key for this experiment is that the hippocampus only be transformed from anadult state—in which stable, persistent memories are formed—
to an infantile state—in which memories fade rapidly after formation. There are several methods that may be used to increase neurogenesis in adult mice, and these methods vary with respect tospecificity. Some—such as environmental enrichment, voluntary
exercise, and antidepressant treatment (Kempermann et al. 1997;
van Praag et al. 1999; Malberg et al. 2000; Santarelli et al. 2003)—
are relatively nonspecific. In addition to increasing neurogenesis,
these manipulations likely have a number of off-target effects.
Others—such as electrical stimulation of hippocampal afferents(e.g., perforant path stimulation) (Bruel-Jungerman et al. 2006;
Stone et al. 2011a) and, in particular, genetic or pharmacologicalinhibition of apoptotic cell death (Pieper et al. 2010; Sahay et al.
2011b)—likely increase neurogenesis while producing fewer offtarget effects. Interestingly, all of these manipulations typicallyincrease adult hippocampal neurogenesis by roughly two- tothreefold. In these experiments, it is important to evaluate the impact of increasing neurogenesis after memory formation on thesubsequent stability of that memory (ensuring that initial encoding is not affected by the manipulation). We predict that (1)forgetting will be proportional to the duration and/or magnitudeof increased neurogenesis, and (2) only hippocampus-dependent(and not hippocampus-independent) memories will be affected.
Moreover, with time, some initially hippocampus-dependent
memories may become hippocampus-independent (Frankland
and Bontempi 2005; but see Nadel and Moscovitch 1997;
Sutherland and Lehmann 2011). Therefore, we additionally predict that at remote time-points, initially hippocampus-dependent

Experimentally testing the neurogenic
hypothesis of infantile amnesia
The studies reviewed above provide indirect evidence for our neurogenic hypothesis of infantile amnesia. To more formally evaluate this hypothesis, we believe two types of experiments are
critical (outlined below). The core manipulation in these experiments involves specifically increasing or decreasing levels of hippocampal neurogenesis in young and adult mice. Fortunately,
increasingly sophisticated mouse-genetic approaches are beginning to make these targeted manipulations possible, while miniwww.learnmem.org

Figure 7. A test of the neurogenic hypothesis of infantile amnesia.
Memory persistence is inversely correlated with levels of neurogenesis.
Our hypothesis is that infants cannot form long-lasting memories becauseof high levels of neurogenesis, which promotes forgetting of recently acquired memories. We predict that making the hippocampus of an otherwise
adult mouse “infantile” (increasing neurogenesis, solid black arrow) should
promote forgetting of already acquired memories. On the other hand,making the hippocampus more “adult” in infant mice (decreasing neurogenesis, dotted black arrow) should promote memory persistence.

429

Learning & MemoryDownloaded from learnmem.cshlp.org on August 17, 2012 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Hippocampal neurogenesis and memory

memories likely become invulnerable to fluctuations in the rate ofneurogenesis.

Does decreasing neurogenesis in infant animals
after memory formation decrease forgetting?
Making the hippocampus ‘adult’ in an otherwise
juvenile mouse
While a variety of evidence shows that infant rodents are able toform hippocampus-dependent memories, these memories do not
persist and typically decay within days. If this instability is due tohigh rates of postnatal granule cell production, then we predictthat suppressing neurogenesis will allow a young animal to forma stable, enduring (adult-like) memory (Fig. 7B). Transforming a juvenile hippocampus into an adult hippocampus is clearly a much
tougher test of the hypothesis than increasing neurogenesis in
adult rodents, as reducing neurogenesis at this early developmental stage might produce a range of off-target effects that may mask
or compete with any pro-memory stability effects. Nonetheless,genetic, pharmacological, and irradiation-based approaches areavailable for suppressing neurogenesis, and there is a defined temporal window in which these manipulations could be applied. In
the mouse and rat brain, neurogenesis is largely limited to the subgranular zone of the hippocampus and subventricular zone by 2
wk following birth (and neurogenesis in these two regions alone
persists into adulthood). Moreover, rodents ,3 wk of age are typically unable to form stable hippocampus-dependent memories.
Therefore, the neurogenic hypothesis of infantile amnesia could
be tested by reducing neurogenesis after training in mice ,3 wk
of age to determine if memories are more persistent. Would sucha manipulation completely rescue infantile amnesia? Factors
other than hippocampal neurogenesis likely contribute to infantile amnesia. For example, the hippocampus interacts with a number of other structures (notably the cortex) during memory
formation and maintenance. Therefore, protracted maturation ofhippocampal-cortical connectivity or cortical structures for “permanent” storage (Alvarado and Bachevalier 2000; Richmond andNelson 2007) may prevent complete rescue of infantile amnesia.

Figure 8. Adult neurogenesis and memory, a two-stage process. Adult
neurogenesis contributes to both memory degradation/clearance (Fenget al. 2001; Deisseroth et al. 2004) as well as storage (e.g., Shors 2008),
depending on the age of the cell. In the process of establishing new synaptic connections, new neurons alter the architecture of existing DG-CA3
networks, leading to degradation (or loss) of information stored in thoseconnections. However, as these new neurons continue to mature, they
enter the second phase where they acquire the potential to store
memory and enhance memory storage.

nections. However, as these new neurons continue to mature,they enter the second phase in which they acquire the potential
to store memory (or become part of the memory trace). For example, immediate early gene mapping studies suggest that adultgenerated neurons maximally contribute to hippocampal memory once they are four or more weeks in age (Kee et al. 2007; Stoneet al. 2011b). Indeed, sufficiently mature adult-generated neurons
have two key properties that may facilitate their ability to store
memories. First, new neurons have “new” (silent?) synapses that
may be specifically dedicated to storing new memories, and, second, new neurons are transiently more excitable and more plastic
than their mature counterparts and, therefore, perhaps more readily incorporated into a memory trace.

Out with the old. . .
But why might memory degradation/clearance be adaptive? The
pioneering memory researcher Théodule Ribot wrote that “forgetfulness, except in certain cases, is not a disease of memory, but acondition of its health and life” (Ribot 1882). Indeed, forgetting
provides a mechanism for ridding the brain of unimportant information. Efficient forgetting, therefore, “unclutters” the hippocampus, allowing important new information to be more
efficiently encoded (Martin et al. 2000; Altmann and Gray 2002;
Schooler and Hertwig 2005). Such “adaptive” forgetting might facilitate the formation of new memories by simply increasing capacity (clearing space) and reducing interference between old,
irrelevant memories and to-be-encoded information (Kraemer
and Golding 1997; Wixted 2004). Indeed, the ability to block irrelevant information reduces the demands on the brain when trying
to recall important information (Kuhl et al. 2007). Lifespanchanges in levels of neurogenesis alter the balance between encoding and forgetting. During infancy, when neurogenesis levels
are high, forgetting is favored, and so memories cannot endure. In
late adulthood, when neurogenesis levels are low, insufficient
clearance might lead to memory interference (i.e., too much unimportant information is retained). Sometime in between, there
is a more optimal balance between encoding and forgetting.
Earlier models have proposed that the benefits of hippocampal neurogenesis-promoting activities (such as learning, exercise,or enrichment) are delayed (Kempermann 2008; Kim et al.
2011). That is, cells generated as a consequence of these types of activities (or the “neurogenic reserve”) (Kempermann 2008) requiresufficient time to differentiate into neurons, mature, and integrate
into hippocampal circuitry before they promote memory function(Ge et al. 2007; Kee et al. 2007; Stone et al. 2011b). In contrast, we

Some final thoughts
Is adult neurogenesis good or bad for memory?
A matter of timing
The finding that neurogenesis persists into adulthood has generated a great deal of enthusiasm, centering on the idea that promoting this process would benefit memory (Aimone et al. 2011;
Sahay et al. 2011a). Therefore, the suggestion that increasing neurogenesis in adult animals might actually destabilize existinghippocampus-dependent memories is, perhaps, counter-intuitive. Are these two ideas—that adult neurogenesis contributes toboth memory degradation (Feng et al. 2001; Deisseroth et al.
2004) as well as storage (e.g., Shors 2008)—compatible? We believe they are and reflect the biphasic, maturation-dependent contribution of adult-generated neurons to hippocampal memory(Fig. 8). That is, the mnemonic effects of adding new neurons to
the DG depend on timing.
The two phases of neurogenesis depend on the age of theadult-generated neurons. Shortly after they are born, newly generated granule cells migrate into the granule cell layer of the DG,
and by 2 wk they begin to make functional afferent and efferent
connections (Zhao et al. 2006; Toni et al. 2007, 2008). It is theprocess of establishing new synaptic connections that alters thearchitecture of existing DG-CA3 networks, perhaps leading todegradation (or loss) of information already stored in those conwww.learnmem.org

430

Learning & MemoryDownloaded from learnmem.cshlp.org on August 17, 2012 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Hippocampal neurogenesis and memory

suggest that there are additional, more immediate benefits ofincreased neurogenesis. The integration of these new cells into
hippocampal circuits may facilitate cognitive function by clearing
older memories, reducing interference and increasing capacity.

Carver LJ, Bauer PJ. 2001. The dawning of a past: The emergence oflong-term explicit memory in infancy. J Exp Psychol Gen 130: 726 –745.
Chambers RA, Potenza MN, Hoffman RE, Miranker W. 2004. Simulated
apoptosis/neurogenesis regulates learning and memory capabilities ofadaptive neural networks. Neuropsychopharmacology 29: 747 –758.
Coulter X, Collier AC, Campbell BA. 1976. Long-term retention of early
Pavlovian fear conditioning in infant rats. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav
Process 2: 48 –56.
Creer DJ, Romberg C, Saksida LM, van Praag H, Bussey TJ. 2010. Runningenhances spatial pattern separation in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:2367 –2372.
Deisseroth K, Singla S, Toda H, Monje M, Palmer TD, Malenka RC. 2004.
Excitation-neurogenesis coupling in adult neural stem/progenitor
cells. Neuron 42: 535 – 552.
Deng W, Saxe MD, Gallina IS, Gage FH. 2009. Adult-born hippocampal
dentate granule cells undergoing maturation modulate learning andmemory in the brain. J Neurosci 29: 13532 –13542.
Deng W, Aimone JB, Gage FH. 2010. New neurons and new memories: How
does adult hippocampal neurogenesis affect learning and memory? Nat
Rev Neurosci 11: 339 –350.
Desai NS, Rutherford LC, Turrigiano GG. 1999. Plasticity in the intrinsic
excitability of cortical pyramidal neurons. Nat Neurosci 2: 515 –520.
Dobbing J, Sands J. 1979. Comparative aspects of the brain growth spurt.
Early Hum Dev 3: 79 –83.
Dupret D, Revest JM, Koehl M, Ichas F, De Giorgi F, Costet P, Abrous DN,
Piazza PV. 2008. Spatial relational memory requires hippocampal adultneurogenesis. PLoS One 3: e1959. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001959.
Eckenhoff MF, Rakic P. 1988. Nature and fate of proliferative cells in the
hippocampal dentate gyrus during the life span of the rhesus monkey.
J Neurosci 8: 2729 –2747.
Eisenberg A. 1985. Learning to describe past experience in conversation.
Discourse Process 8: 177 –204.
Eriksson PS, Perfilieva E, Bjork-Eriksson T, Alborn AM, Nordborg C,
Peterson DA, Gage FH. 1998. Neurogenesis in the adult humanhippocampus. Nat Med 4: 1313 –1317.
Fantz RL. 1956. A method of studying early visual development. Percept Mot
Skills 6: 13 –15.
Feigley DA, Spear NE. 1970. Effect of age and punishment condition on
long-term retention by the rat of active- and passive-avoidance
learning. J Comp Physiol Psychol 73: 515 –526.
Feng R, Rampon C, Tang YP, Shrom D, Jin J, Kyin M, Sopher B, Miller MW,
Ware CB, Martin GM, et al. 2001. Deficient neurogenesis inforebrain-specific presenilin-1 knockout mice is associated with reduced
clearance of hippocampal memory traces. Neuron 32: 911 –926.
Frankland PW, Bontempi B. 2005. The organization of recent and remotememories. Nat Rev Neurosci 6: 119 –130.
Frankland PW, O’Brien C, Ohno M, Kirkwood A, Silva AJ. 2001.
Alpha-CaMKII-dependent plasticity in the cortex is required forpermanent memory. Nature 411: 309 –313.
Frankland PW, Bontempi B, Talton LE, Kaczmarek L, Silva AJ. 2004. The
involvement of the anterior cingulate cortex in remote contextual fear
memory. Science 304: 881 –883.
Freud S. 1899. The standard edition of the complete works of Sigmund Freud.
Hogarth Press, London.
Freud S. 1900. The interpretation of dreams. Macmillan, New York, NY.
Freud S. 1914. Psychopathology of everyday life. The Macmillan Company,
New York, NY.
Frohlich F, Bazhenov M, Sejnowski TJ. 2008. Pathological effect of
homeostatic synaptic scaling on network dynamics in diseases of thecortex. J Neurosci 28: 1709 –1720.
Ge S, Yang CH, Hsu KS, Ming GL, Song H. 2007. A critical period forenhanced synaptic plasticity in newly generated neurons of the adultbrain. Neuron 54: 559 –566.
Giedd JN, Blumenthal J, Jeffries NO, Castellanos FX, Liu H, Zijdenbos A,
Paus T, Evans AC, Rapoport JL. 1999. Brain development duringchildhood and adolescence: A longitudinal MRI study. Nat Neurosci 2:
861 –863.
Golowasch J, Abbott LF, Marder E. 1999. Activity-dependent regulation ofpotassium currents in an identified neuron of the stomatogastricganglion of the crab. Cancer borealis. J Neurosci 19: RC33.
Gould E, Tanapat P, McEwen BS, Flugge G, Fuchs E. 1998. Proliferation of
granule cell precursors in the dentate gyrus of adult monkeys isdiminished by stress. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95: 3168 –3171.
Gould E, Reeves AJ, Fallah M, Tanapat P, Gross CG, Fuchs E. 1999.
Hippocampal neurogenesis in adult Old World primates. Proc Natl Acad
Sci 96: 5263 –5267.
Graf P, Schacter DL. 1985. Implicit and explicit memory for new
associations in normal and amnesic subjects. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem
Cogn 11: 501 –518.
Guidi S, Ciani E, Severi S, Contestabile A, Bartesaghi R. 2005. Postnatal
neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus of the guinea pig. Hippocampus 15:
285 –301.

Acknowledgments
This project was supported by CIHR grants to S.A.J. (MOP-74650)
and P.W.F. (MOP-77561), as well as a “Chase an Idea in Paediatric
Neuroscience” grant from The Centre for Brain & Behaviour at the
Hospital for Sick Children. We thank Katherine Akers, AlonsoMartinez-Canabal, Leonardo Restivo, Anne Wheeler, and StefanKöhler for helpful discussions throughout this project. We thankLeigh Botly for her expert help in preparing the figures.

References
Abraham H, Tornoczky T, Kosztolanyi G, Seress L. 2001. Cell formation in
the cortical layers of the developing human cerebellum. Int J Dev
Neurosci 19: 53 –62.
Acsady L, Kamondi A, Sik A, Freund T, Buzsaki G. 1998. GABAergic cells are
the major postsynaptic targets of mossy fibers in the rat hippocampus.
J Neurosci 18: 3386 –3403.
Aimone JB, Gage FH. 2011. Modeling new neuron function: A history ofusing computational neuroscience to study adult neurogenesis. Eur
J Neurosci 33: 1160 –1169.
Aimone JB, Deng W, Gage FH. 2011. Resolving new memories: A criticallook at the dentate gyrus, adult neurogenesis, and pattern separation.
Neuron 70: 589 –596.
Altman J, Das GD. 1967. Postnatal neurogenesis in the guinea-pig. Nature
214: 1098 –1101.
Altmann EM, Gray WD. 2002. Forgetting to remember: The functional
relationship of decay and interference. Psychol Sci 13: 27 – 33.
Alvarado MC, Bachevalier J. 2000. Revisiting the maturation of medial
temporal lobe memory functions in primates. Learn Mem 7: 244 –256.
Anderson MJ, Barnes GW, Briggs JF, Ashton KM, Moody EW, Joynes RL,
Riccio DC. 2004. Effects of ontogeny on performance of rats in a novel
object-recognition task. Psychol Rep 94: 437 –443.
Arnold SE, Trojanowski JQ. 1996. Human fetal hippocampal development:
I. Cytoarchitecture, myeloarchitecture, and neuronal morphologic
features. J Comp Neurol 367: 274 –292.
Bachevalier J, Brickson M, Hagger C. 1993. Limbic-dependent recognition
memory in monkeys develops early in infancy. Neuroreport 4: 77 –80.
Barr R, Dowden A, Hayne H. 1996. Developmental change in deferred
imitation by 6- to 24-month-old infants. Infant Behav Dev 19: 159 –170.
Bauer PJ. 2006. Constructing a past in infancy: A neuro-developmental
account. Trends Cogn Sci 10: 175 –181.
Bauer PJ. 2007. Remembering the times of our lives: Memory in infancy andbeyond. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bauer PJ. 2008. Toward a neuro-developmental account of thedevelopment of declarative memory. Dev Psychobiol 50: 19 –31.
Brickley SG, Revilla V, Cull-Candy SG, Wisden W, Farrant M. 2001.
Adaptive regulation of neuronal excitability by a voltage-independent
potassium conductance. Nature 409: 88 – 92.
Brown RW, Kraemer PJ. 1997. Ontogenetic differences in retention of
spatial learning tested with the Morris water maze. Dev Psychobiol
30: 329 –341.
Bruce D, Wilcox-O’Hearn LA, Robinson JA, Phillips-Grant K, Francis L,
Smith MC. 2005. Fragment memories mark the end of childhood
amnesia. Mem Cognit 33: 567 –576.
Bruel-Jungerman E, Davis S, Rampon C, Laroche S. 2006. Long-term
potentiation enhances neurogenesis in the adult dentate gyrus.
J Neurosci 26: 5888 –5893.
Cameron HA, McKay RD. 2001. Adult neurogenesis produces a large pool of
new granule cells in the dentate gyrus. J Comp Neurol 435: 406– 417.
Campbell BA. 1984. Reflections on the ontogeny of learning and memory.
In Comparative perspectives on the development of memory (ed. RV Kail,
NE Spear), pp. 23 – 35. Routledge, New York, NY.
Campbell BA, Campbell EH. 1962. Retention and extinction of learned fearin infant and adult rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol 55: 1–8.
Campbell BA, Spear NE. 1972. Ontogeny of memory. Psychol Rev 79:
215 –236.
Campbell BA, Jaynes J, Misanin JR. 1968. Retention of a light-dark
discrimination in rats of different ages. J Comp Physiol Psychol 66:
467 –472.
Campbell BA, Misanin JR, White BC, Lytle LD. 1974. Species differences in
ontogeny of memory: Indirect support for neural maturation as adeterminant of forgetting. J Comp Physiol Psychol 87: 193 –202.

www.learnmem.org

431

Learning & MemoryDownloaded from learnmem.cshlp.org on August 17, 2012 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Hippocampal neurogenesis and memory

Gunderson VM, Sackett GP. 1984. Development of pattern recognition
in infant pigtailed macaques (Macaca nemestrina). Dev Psych 20:
418 –426.
Gunderson EP, Swartz K. 1985. Visual recognition in infant pigtailed
macaques after a 24-hour delay. Am J Prim 8: 259 –264.
Hackman DA, Farah MJ, Meaney MJ. 2010. Socioeconomic status and thebrain: Mechanistic insights from human and animal research. Nat Rev
Neurosci 11: 651 – 659.
Harley K, Reese E. 1999. Origins of autobiographical memory. Dev Psychol
35: 1338 –1348.
Hayne H. 2004. Infant memory development: Implications for childhood
amnesia. Dev Rev 24: 33 –73.
Hayne H, Rovee-Collier C. 1995. The organization of reactivated memory
in infancy. Child Dev 66: 893 –906.
Henri V, Henri C. 1895. On our earliest recollections of childhood. Am
J Psychol 7: 303 –304.
Henze DA, Wittner L, Buzsaki G. 2002. Single granule cells reliably
discharge targets in the hippocampal CA3 network in vivo. Nat Neurosci
5: 790 –795.
Herbert J, Hayne H. 2000. The ontogeny of long-term retention during thesecond year of life. Dev Sci 3: 50 –56.
Howe ML, Courage ML. 1993. On resolving the enigma of infantileamnesia. Psychol Bull 113: 305 –326.
Hudson JA. 1991. Learning to reminisce: A case study. Journal of Narrativeand Life History 1: 1 –32.
Hudson JA, Fivush R, Kuebli J. 1992. Scripts and episode: The developmentof event memory. Appl Cogn Psychol 6: 483 – 505.
Hudson JA, Shapiro LR, Sosa BB. 1995. Planning in the real world:
Preschool children’s scripts and plans for familiar events. Child Dev 66:
984 –998.
Humphrey T. 1967. The development of the human hippocampal fissure.
J Anat 101: 655 –676.
Huttenlocher PR, Dabholkar AS. 1997. Regional differences insynaptogenesis in human cerebral cortex. J Comp Neurol 387: 167 –178.
Inokuchi K. 2011. Adult neurogenesis and modulation of neural circuit
function. Curr Opin Neurobiol 21: 360– 364.
Jabès A, Lavenex PB, Amaral DG, Lavenex P. 2010. Quantitative analysis of
postnatal neurogenesis and neuron number in the macaque monkey
dentate gyrus. Eur J Neurosci 31: 273 –285.
Karmarkar UR, Buonomano DV. 2006. Different forms of homeostatic
plasticity are engaged with distinct temporal profiles. Eur J Neurosci 23:
1575 – 1584.
Kee N, Teixeira CM, Wang AH, Frankland PW. 2007. Preferential
incorporation of adult-generated granule cells into spatial memory
networks in the dentate gyrus. Nat Neurosci 10: 355 – 362.
Kempermann G. 2008. The neurogenic reserve hypothesis: What is adulthippocampal neurogenesis good for? Trends Neurosci 31: 163 –169.
Kempermann G, Kuhn HG, Gage FH. 1997. More hippocampal
neurons in adult mice living in an enriched environment. Nature 386:
493 –495.
Kim JJ, Fanselow MS. 1992. Modality-specific retrograde amnesia of fear.
Science 256: 675 –677.
Kim WR, Christian K, Ming GL, Song H. 2011. Time-dependent
involvement of adult-born dentate granule cells in behavior. Behav
Brain Res 227: 470 –479.
Kirby RH. 1963. Acquisition, extinction, and retention of an avoidance
response in rats as a function of age. J Comp Physiol Psychol 56: 158– 162.
Kitamura T, Saitoh Y, Takashima N, Murayama A, Niibori Y, Ageta H,
Sekiguchi M, Sugiyama H, Inokuchi K. 2009. Adult neurogenesis
modulates the hippocampus-dependent period of associative fear
memory. Cell 139: 814 –827.
Klein SB, Spear NE. 1969. Influence of age on short-term retention ofactive-avoidance learning in rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol 69: 583 –589.
Knoth R, Singec I, Ditter M, Pantazis G, Capetian P, Meyer RP, Horvat V,
Volk B, Kempermann G. 2010. Murine features of neurogenesis in thehuman hippocampus across the lifespan from 0 to 100 years. PLoS One
5: e8809. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008809.
Kornack DR, Rakic P. 1999. Continuation of neurogenesis in the
hippocampus of the adult macaque monkey. Proc Natl Acad Sci 96:
5768 – 5773.
Kraemer PJ, Golding JM. 1997. Adaptive forgetting in animals. Psychon Bull
Rev 4: 480– 491.
Kuhl BA, Dudukovic NM, Kahn I, Wagner AD. 2007. Decreased demands on
cognitive control reveal the neural processing benefits of forgetting.
Nat Neurosci 10: 908 –914.
Kuhn HG, Dickinson-Anson H, Gage FH. 1996. Neurogenesis in the dentate
gyrus of the adult rat: Age-related decrease of neuronal progenitor
proliferation. J Neurosci 16: 2027 –2033.
Leuner B, Mendolia-Loffredo S, Kozorovitskiy Y, Samburg D, Gould E,
Shors TJ. 2004. Learning enhances the survival of new neurons beyond
the time when the hippocampus is required for memory. J Neurosci 24:
7477 – 7481.

www.learnmem.org

Malberg JE, Eisch AJ, Nestler EJ, Duman RS. 2000. Chronic antidepressanttreatment increases neurogenesis in adult rat hippocampus. J Neurosci
20: 9104 –9110.
Martin SJ, Grimwood PD, Morris RG. 2000. Synaptic plasticity and memory:
An evaluation of the hypothesis. Annu Rev Neurosci 23: 649 – 711.
McCabe A, Peterson C. 1991. Getting the story: A longitudinal study ofparental styles in eliciting narratives and developing narrative skill. In
Developing narrative structure (ed. A McCabe, C Peterson), pp. 217 –253.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Meltzer LA, Yabaluri R, Deisseroth K. 2005. A role for circuit homeostasis in
adult neurogenesis. Trends Neurosci 28: 653 –660.
Miles C. 1893. A study of individual psychology. Am J Psychol 6: 534 – 558.
Miller PJ, Sperry LL. 1988. Early talk about the past: The origins ofconversational stories of personal experience. J Child Lang 15: 293 – 315.
Morgan K, Hayne H. 2006a. Age-related changes in memory reactivation by
1- and 2-year-old human infants. Dev Psychobiol 48: 48 –57.
Morgan K, Hayne H. 2006b. The effect of encoding time on retention by
infants and young children. Infant Behav Dev 29: 599 –602.
Morgan K, Hayne H. 2011. Age-related changes in visual recognition
memory during infancy and early childhood. Dev Psychobiol 53:
157 – 165.
Nadel L, Moscovitch M. 1997. Memory consolidation, retrograde amnesia
and the hippocampal complex. Curr Opin Neurobiol 7: 217– 227.
Nelson K. 1989. Narratives from the crib. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Nelson K. 1993. The psychological and social origins of autobiographicalmemory. Psychol Sci 4: 7 –14.
Nelson CA. 1997. The neurobiological basis of early memory development.
In The development of memory in early childhood (ed. N Cowan),
pp. 41 –82. Psychology Press, Hove, East Sussex, UK.
Nelson CA. 2000. Neural plasticity in human development: The
role of early experience in sculpting memory systems. Dev Sci 3:
115 – 130.
Nelson K, Fivush R. 2004. The emergence of autobiographical memory:
A social cultural developmental theory. Psychol Rev 111: 486 –511.
Nelson K, Gruendel J. 1981. Generalized event representations: Basicbuilding blocks of cognitive development. In Advances in developmental
psychology (ed. ME Lamb, AL Brown), pp. 131 – 158. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Nowakowski RS, Rakic P. 1981. The site of origin and route and rate of
migration of neurons to the hippocampal region of the rhesus monkey.
J Comp Neurol 196: 129 –154.
Ornstein PA, Baker-Ward L, Gordon BN, Merritt KA. 1997. Children’s
memory for medical experiences: Implications for testimony. Appl Cogn
Psychol 11: 87 – 104.
Payne C, Machado CJ, Bliwise NG, Bachevalier J. 2010. Maturation of
the hippocampal formation and amygdala in Macaca mulatta: A
volumetric magnetic resonance imaging study. Hippocampus 20:
922 – 935.
Perner J, Ruffman T. 1995. Episodic memory and autonoetic consciousness:
Developmental evidence and a theory of childhood amnesia. J Exp
Child Psychol 59: 516 – 548.
Peterson C. 2002. Children’s long-term memory for autobiographicalevents. Dev Rev 22: 370 –402.
Peterson C, McCabe A. 1987. The connective ‘and’: Do older children use it
less as they learn other connectives? J Child Lang 14: 375 –381.
Peterson C, Jesso B, McCabe A. 1999. Encouraging narratives inpreschoolers: An intervention study. J Child Lang 26: 49 –67.
Piatti VC, Esposito MS, Schinder AF. 2006. The timing of neuronaldevelopment in adult hippocampal neurogenesis. Neuroscientist 12:
463 – 468.
Pieper AA, Xie S, Capota E, Estill SJ, Zhong J, Long JM, Becker GL,
Huntington P, Goldman SE, Shen CH, et al. 2010. Discovery of aproneurogenic, neuroprotective chemical. Cell 142: 39 –51.
Pillemer DB, White SH. 1989. Childhood events recalled by children andadults. Adv Child Dev Behav 21: 297 – 340.
Rakic P. 2002. Adult neurogenesis in mammals: An identity crisis. J Neurosci
22: 614 –618.
Ribot T. 1882. Diseases of memory. Appleton, New York, NY.
Richmond J, Nelson CA. 2007. Accounting for change in declarative
memory: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Dev Rev 27: 349 –373.
Rose S, Gottfried A, Melloy-Carminar P, Bridger W. 1982. Familiarity andnovelty preferences in infant recognition memory: Implications for
information processing. Dev Psych 18: 704 –713.
Rovee-Collier C. 1997. Dissociations in infant memory: Rethinking
the development of implicit and explicit memory. Psychol Rev 104:
467 – 498.
Rovee-Collier C. 1999. The development of infant memory. Curr Dir Psychol
Sci 8: 80 –85.
Rovee-Collier C, Cuevas K. 2009. Multiple memory systems areunnecessary to account for infant memory development: An ecologicalmodel. Dev Psychol 45: 160 –174.

432

Learning & MemoryDownloaded from learnmem.cshlp.org on August 17, 2012 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

Hippocampal neurogenesis and memory

dentate gyrus circuits supporting hippocampus-dependent memory.
Hippocampus 21: 1348 –1362.
Sutherland RJ, Lehmann H. 2011. Alternative conceptions of memory
consolidation and the role of the hippocampus at the systems level inrodents. Curr Opin Neurobiol 21: 446 –451.
Toni N, Teng EM, Bushong EA, Aimone JB, Zhao C, Consiglio A, vanPraag H, Martone ME, Ellisman MH, Gage FH. 2007. Synapse
formation on neurons born in the adult hippocampus. Nat Neurosci
10: 727 –734.
Toni N, Laplagne DA, Zhao C, Lombardi G, Ribak CE, Gage FH, Schinder AF.
2008. Neurons born in the adult dentate gyrus form functional
synapses with target cells. Nat Neurosci 11: 901 –907.
Treves A, Tashiro A, Witter ME, Moser EI. 2008. What is the mammaliandentate gyrus good for? Neuroscience 154: 1155 –1172.
Tulving E. 1983. Elements of episodic memory. Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Tulving E, Thompson DM. 1973. Encoding specificity and retrieval
processes in episodic memory. Psychol Rev 80: 352 –373.
Turrigiano GG. 2008. The self-tuning neuron: Synaptic scaling of
excitatory synapses. Cell 135: 422 –435.
Tustin K, Hayne H. 2010. Defining the boundary: Age-related changes inchildhood amnesia. Dev Psychol 46: 1049 –1061.
van Abbema DL, Bauer PJ. 2005. Autobiographical memory in childhood:
Development of a personal past. Memory 13: 829 –845.
van Praag H, Kempermann G, Gage FH. 1999. Running increases cellproliferation and neurogenesis in the adult mouse dentate gyrus.
Nat Neurosci 2: 266 –270.
Wang Q. 2003. Infantile amnesia reconsidered: A cross-cultural analysis.
Memory 11: 65 – 80.
Weber M, McNally GP, Richardson R. 2006. Opioid receptors regulate
retrieval of infant fear memories: Effects of naloxone on infantileamnesia. Behav Neurosci 120: 702 – 709.
Wetzler SE, Sweeney JA. 1986. Childhood amnesia: An empiricaldemonstration. In Autobiographical memory (ed. DC Rubin),pp. 191 –201. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Wiskott L, Rasch MJ, Kempermann G. 2006. A functional hypothesis for
adult hippocampal neurogenesis: Avoidance of catastrophic
interference in the dentate gyrus. Hippocampus 16: 329 –343.
Wixted JT. 2004. The psychology and neuroscience of forgetting. Annu Rev
Psychol 55: 235 –269.
Yamasaki N, Maekawa M, Kobayashi K, Kajii Y, Maeda J, Soma M,
Takao K, Tanda K, Ohira K, Toyama K, et al. 2008. Alpha-CaMKII
deficiency causes immature dentate gyrus, a novel candidate
endophenotype of psychiatric disorders. Mol Brain 1: 6. doi: 10.1186/
1756-6606-1-6.
Yasuda M, Johnson-Venkatesh EM, Zhang H, Parent JM, Sutton MA,
Umemori H. 2011. Multiple forms of activity-dependent competitionrefine hippocampal circuits in vivo. Neuron 70: 1128 –1142.
Yu TS, Zhang G, Liebl DJ, Kernie SG. 2008. Traumatic brain injury-induced
hippocampal neurogenesis requires activation of earlynestin-expressing progenitors. J Neurosci 28: 12901 – 12912.
Zeamer A, Heuer E, Bachevalier J. 2010. Developmental trajectory of object
recognition memory in infant rhesus macaques with and without
neonatal hippocampal lesions. J Neurosci 30: 9157 –9165.
Zhao C, Teng EM, Summers RG Jr, Ming GL, Gage FH. 2006. Distinct
morphological stages of dentate granule neuron maturation in theadult mouse hippocampus. J Neurosci 26: 3 –11.
Zhao C, Deng W, Gage FH. 2008. Mechanisms and functional implicationsof adult neurogenesis. Cell 132: 645– 660.

Rubin DC. 1982. On the retention function for autobiographical memory.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 21: 21 –38.
Rubin DC. 2000. The distribution of early childhood memories. Memory
8: 265 –269.
Rubin DC, Schulkind MD. 1997. The distribution of important andword-cued autobiographical memories in 20-, 35- and 70-year oldadults. Psychol Aging 12: 524 –535.
Rudy JW, Morledge P. 1994. Ontogeny of contextual fear conditioning in
rats: Implications for consolidation, infantile amnesia, andhippocampal system function. Behav Neurosci 108: 227 –234.
Sahay A, Wilson DA, Hen R. 2011a. Pattern separation: A common function
for new neurons in hippocampus and olfactory bulb. Neuron 70:
582 –588.
Sahay A, Scobie KN, Hill AS, O’Carroll CM, Kheirbek MA, Burghardt NS,
Fenton AA, Dranovsky A, Hen R. 2011b. Increasing adult hippocampal
neurogenesis is sufficient to improve pattern separation. Nature 472:
466 –470.
Santarelli L, Saxe M, Gross C, Surget A, Battaglia F, Dulawa S, Weisstaub N,
Lee J, Duman R, Arancio O, et al. 2003. Requirement of hippocampal
neurogenesis for the behavioral effects of antidepressants. Science 301:
805 –809.
Schlessinger AR, Cowan WM, Gottlieb DI. 1975. An autoradiographic studyof the time of origin and the pattern of granule cell migration in thedentate gyrus of the rat. J Comp Neurol 159: 149 –175.
Schmidt-Hieber C, Jonas P, Bischofberger J. 2004. Enhanced synaptic
plasticity in newly generated granule cells of the adult hippocampus.
Nature 429: 184– 187.
Schooler LJ, Hertwig R. 2005. How forgetting aids heuristic inference.
Psychol Rev 112: 610 –628.
Schulenburg CJ, Riccio DC, Stikes ER. 1971. Acquisition and retention of apassive-avoidance response as a function of age in rats. J Comp Physiol
Psychol 74: 75 –83.
Seki T, Arai Y. 1995. Age-related production of new granule cells in the adultdentate gyrus. Neuroreport 6: 2479 –2482.
Seress L, Abraham H, Tornoczky T, Kosztolanyi G. 2001. Cell formation in
the human hippocampal formation from mid-gestation to the latepostnatal period. Neuroscience 105: 831 –843.
Shors TJ. 2008. From stem cells to grandmother cells: How neurogenesis
relates to learning and memory. Cell Stem Cell 3: 253– 258.
Shors TJ, Miesegaes G, Beylin A, Zhao M, Rydel T, Gould E. 2001.
Neurogenesis in the adult is involved in the formation of trace
memories. Nature 410: 372 –376.
Sierra A, Encinas JM, Maletic-Savatic M. 2011. Adult humanneurogenesis: From microscopy to magnetic resonance imaging.
Front Neurosci 5: 47.
Simcock G, Hayne H. 2002. Breaking the barrier? Children fail to translate
their preverbal memories into language. Psychol Sci 13: 225 –231.
Snyder JS, Cameron HA. 2011. Could adult hippocampal neurogenesis be
relevant for human behavior? Behav Brain Res 227: 384 –390.
Squire LR. 1994. Declarative and nondeclarative memory: Multiple brain
systems supporting learning & memory. In Memory systems (ed.
DL Schacter, E Tulving), pp. 203 –232. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Stehouwer DJ, Campbell BA. 1980. Ontogeny of passive avoidance: Role oftask demands and development of species-typical behaviors. Dev
Psychobiol 13: 385 –398.
Stone SS, Teixeira CM, Devito LM, Zaslavsky K, Josselyn SA, Lozano AM,
Frankland PW. 2011a. Stimulation of entorhinal cortex promotes adultneurogenesis and facilitates spatial memory. J Neurosci 31:
13469 –13484.
Stone SS, Teixeira CM, Zaslavsky K, Wheeler AL, Martinez-Canabal A,
Wang AH, Sakaguchi M, Lozano AM, Frankland PW. 2011b. Functional
convergence of developmentally and adult-generated granule cells in

www.learnmem.org

Received January 10, 2012; accepted in revised form May 2, 2012.

433

Learning & Memory