Learning and updating structured knowledge
During our everyday lives, much of what we experience is familiar and predictable. We typically follow the same morning routine, take the same route to work, and encounter the same colleagues. However, every once in a while, we encounter a surprising event that violates our expectations. When we encounter such violations of our expectations, it is adaptive to update our internal model of the world in order to make better predictions in the future. The hippocampus is thought to support both the learning of the predictable structure of our environment, as well as the detection and encoding of violations. However, the hippocampus is a complex and heterogeneous structure, composed of different subfields that are thought to subserve different functions. As such, it is not yet known how the hippocampus accomplishes the learning and updating of structured knowledge. Using behavioral methods and high-resolution fMRI, I'll show that during learning of repeated and predicted events, hippocampal subfields differentially integrate and separate event representations, thus learning the structure of ongoing experience. I then move on to discuss how when events violate our predictions, there is a shift in communication between hippocampal subfields, potentially allowing for efficient encoding of the novel and surprising information. If time permits, I'll present an additional behavioral study showing that violations of predictions promote detailed memories. Together, these studies advance our understanding of how we adaptively learn and update our knowledge.
Super-Recognizers: facts, fallacies, and the future
Over the past decade, the domain of face identity processing has seen a surging interest in inter-individual differences, with a focus on individuals with superior skills, so-called Super-Recognizers (SRs; Ramon et al., 2019; Russell et al., 2009). Their study can provide valuable insights into brain-behavior relationships and advance our understanding of neural functioning. Despite a decade of research, and similarly to the field of developmental prosopagnosia, a consensus on diagnostic criteria for SR identification is lacking. Consequently, SRs are currently identified either inconsistently, via suboptimal individual tests, or via undocumented collections of tests. This state of the field has two major implications. Firstly, our scientific understanding of SRs will remain at best limited. Secondly, the needs of government agencies interested in deploying SRs for real-life identity verification (e.g., policing) are unlikely to be met. To counteract these issues, I suggest the following action points. Firstly, based on our and others’ work suggesting novel and challenging tests of face cognition (Bobak et al., 2019; Fysh et al., in press; Stacchi et al., 2019), and my collaborations with international security agencies, I recommend novel diagnostic criteria for SR identification. These are currently being used to screen the Berlin State Police’s >25K employees before identifying SRs via bespoke testing procedures we have collaboratively developed over the past years. Secondly, I introduce a cohort of SRs identified using these criteria, which is being studied in-depth using behavioral methods, psychophysics, eye-tracking, and neuroimaging. Finally, I suggest data acquired for these individuals should be curated to develop and share best practices with researchers and practitioners, and to gain an accurate and transparent description of SR cases to exploit their informative value.