Working Memory: Separating the present and the future

The brain stores information that is needed immediately and information that will be needed in the future in different ways.
  1. Qing Yu  Is a corresponding author
  2. Bradley R Postle  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States

Imagine you are in a grocery store without a shopping list. Even though you need to purchase multiple items, you still need to select them one by one. How does the brain distinguish between the most relevant information from everything else on our mind? In particular, is information about the item you intend to buy first stored in your 'working memory' in the same way as information about the other items?

A common method used to study memory processing in the human brain is functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Moreover, researchers often use machine learning techniques, such as multivariate pattern analysis, to decode information from the fMRI data. Typically, if multivariate pattern analysis is able to discriminate between different pieces of information based on their activity patterns in the brain, this is interpreted as evidence for an 'active' representation of the information. Alternatively, a failure to decode might suggest there is no active representation of it.

It is generally acknowledged that information that is immediately relevant is actively represented in working memory, but it remains unclear if this is also true for information that will be needed in the future (that is, for prospectively relevant information: see, for example, LaRocque et al., 2013; Lewis-Peacock et al., 2012). One possibility is that the latter is stored in an ‘activity-silent’ manner, due to a transient change in the strength of the synaptic connections between neurons (see, for example, Barak and Tsodyks, 2014). Such information can usually not be detected by traditional fMRI measurements, unless the network is stimulated to reactivate the ‘activity-silent’ information (Rose et al., 2016; Wolff et al., 2017). Alternatively, prospectively relevant information may be transferred to brain regions that are different from those where immediately relevant information is held (see, for example, Christophel et al., 2018).

Now, in eLife, Christian Olivers and colleagues of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and the University of Amsterdam – Anouk van Loon, Katya Olmos Solis and Johannes Fahrenfort – report evidence for a third possibility, namely that prospectively relevant information is represented actively, but in a recoded format (van Loon et al., 2018).

To explore how working memory distinguishes between immediately relevant and prospectively relevant information, volunteers were asked to perform two visual search tasks. In the first experiment, they consecutively viewed a flower and another object (either a cow, a dresser or a skate), and the order was manipulated between trials. A cue during the initial presentation indicated which image would be relevant for the first (imminent) or the second (prospective) search. Then, depending on the trial (current vs. prospective), they had to first search for the target flower in an array of flowers and then search for the other target (e.g., a cow in an array of different cows), or vice versa. During the tasks, the researchers used fMRI to measure a region of the brain involved in categorizing objects, called the posterior fusiform cortex.

The researchers found that before the volunteers knew which of the two images would be the first search target, both were actively represented in a similar way in working memory. However, once one of the images was designated as immediately relevant, the representations diverged. Although both were still actively represented, the patterns of the two stimuli were the inverse of each other, as indicated by multivariate pattern analysis and another technique called representational dissimilarity analysis.

Moreover, after the first search, when the prospectively relevant information became immediately relevant, its representation in the brain 'flipped' back to its original pattern. In a second experiment, the researchers found that this reversed pattern only happened if the information was prospectively relevant; if the volunteer was told that the information was no longer relevant, it was lost from working memory.

As van Loon et al. acknowledge, other research groups have made similar discoveries using different kinds of tasks and different kinds of stimuli. Together all these results have important implications for our understanding of the representation of information in working memory. Therefore, a key goal for future research will be to clarify the circumstances under which prospectively relevant information is re-represented – relative to immediately relevant information – in a different pattern, in a different region of the brain, or a different state.


Article and author information

Author details

  1. Qing Yu

    Qing Yu is in the Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, United States

    For correspondence
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8480-7634
  2. Bradley R Postle

    Bradley R Postle is in the Department of Psychology and the Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, United States

    For correspondence
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8555-0148

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: December 4, 2018 (version 1)


© 2018, Yu et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.


  • 1,608
    Page views
  • 204
  • 1

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Qing Yu
  2. Bradley R Postle
Working Memory: Separating the present and the future
eLife 7:e43339.
  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Huu Hoang, Shinichiro Tsutsumi ... Keisuke Toyama
    Research Article Updated

    Cerebellar climbing fibers convey diverse signals, but how they are organized in the compartmental structure of the cerebellar cortex during learning remains largely unclear. We analyzed a large amount of coordinate-localized two-photon imaging data from cerebellar Crus II in mice undergoing ‘Go/No-go’ reinforcement learning. Tensor component analysis revealed that a majority of climbing fiber inputs to Purkinje cells were reduced to only four functional components, corresponding to accurate timing control of motor initiation related to a Go cue, cognitive error-based learning, reward processing, and inhibition of erroneous behaviors after a No-go cue. Changes in neural activities during learning of the first two components were correlated with corresponding changes in timing control and error learning across animals, indirectly suggesting causal relationships. Spatial distribution of these components coincided well with boundaries of Aldolase-C/zebrin II expression in Purkinje cells, whereas several components are mixed in single neurons. Synchronization within individual components was bidirectionally regulated according to specific task contexts and learning stages. These findings suggest that, in close collaborations with other brain regions including the inferior olive nucleus, the cerebellum, based on anatomical compartments, reduces dimensions of the learning space by dynamically organizing multiple functional components, a feature that may inspire new-generation AI designs.

    1. Neuroscience
    Max L Sterling, Ruben Teunisse, Bernhard Englitz
    Tools and Resources Updated

    Ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs) fulfill an important role in communication and navigation in many species. Because of their social and affective significance, rodent USVs are increasingly used as a behavioral measure in neurodevelopmental and neurolinguistic research. Reliably attributing USVs to their emitter during close interactions has emerged as a difficult, key challenge. If addressed, all subsequent analyses gain substantial confidence. We present a hybrid ultrasonic tracking system, Hybrid Vocalization Localizer (HyVL), that synergistically integrates a high-resolution acoustic camera with high-quality ultrasonic microphones. HyVL is the first to achieve millimeter precision (~3.4–4.8 mm, 91% assigned) in localizing USVs, ~3× better than other systems, approaching the physical limits (mouse snout ~10 mm). We analyze mouse courtship interactions and demonstrate that males and females vocalize in starkly different relative spatial positions, and that the fraction of female vocalizations has likely been overestimated previously due to imprecise localization. Further, we find that when two male mice interact with one female, one of the males takes a dominant role in the interaction both in terms of the vocalization rate and the location relative to the female. HyVL substantially improves the precision with which social communication between rodents can be studied. It is also affordable, open-source, easy to set up, can be integrated with existing setups, and reduces the required number of experiments and animals.