, 2011). If interactions between cPFC and mid-VLPFC contribute to overcoming the competition between the avoided memory and its substitute, one may accordingly expect a weaker coupling for individuals who successfully induced greater forgetting of unwanted memories. For these participants, there is less demand to continue engaging competition resolution, because the forgotten memories no longer interfere with substitute recall. In line with this prediction, we observed a negative correlation between below-baseline forgetting on the final test and coupling parameters in parts of mid-VLPFC (Figure 4A; −57, 20, 16; z = 3.17; FWE small-volume corrected): the more

effectively people forgot unwanted memories, the less coupled mid-VLPFC was with cPFC. By contrast, there was no such relationship for the direct suppression group. Taken together, these data http://www.selleckchem.com/screening/pi3k-signaling-inhibitor-library.html indicate that when people attempt to control

unwanted memories by occupying awareness with a thought substitute, this mechanism is mediated by interactions between two left prefrontal regions involved in controlled memory retrieval and selection. Moreover, if thought substitution engages processes supported by cPFC and mid-VLPFC to resolve retrieval competition, the activation in these VEGFR inhibitor two regions may scale with hippocampal activation. It has been argued that when one has to select between conflicting memories, hippocampal BOLD signal may reflect the concurrent activation of both relevant and irrelevant memory traces (Kuhl et al., 2007; Wimber et al., 2009), and activation in the left HC shows increased activation during the retrieval of two unrelated associations (Ford et al., 2010). By this account, greater HC activation during thought substitution would indicate that both memory traces have been activated, thus marking a greater requirement for controlled retrieval and selection of the substitute over the unwanted memory. In line with this prediction, contrast estimates for suppress versus recall events correlated between the left HC and both cPFC (r(18) = 0.62, p < 0.01; Figure 4B) and mid-VLPFC (r(18) = 0.47, p < 0.05; Figure 4B). Thus, individuals who exhibited greater HC activation

during substitution attempts also exhibited greater cPFC and mid-VLPFC recruitment. This pattern suggests that the retrieval selection processes supported by the left-prefrontal STK38 circuit are functionally linked to retrieval processes supported by the hippocampus. By contrast, for the direct suppression group, neither cPFC nor mid-VLPFC activation correlated with left HC engagement (cPFC: r(18) = 0.19, p = 0.44; mid-VLPFC: r(18) = 0.06, p = 0.822). Thus, efforts to ensure that awareness is exclusively occupied by alternate thoughts are accompanied by increased activation in the hippocampus, the opposite of what occurs during the direct suppression of unwanted memories. This study scrutinized two mechanisms that may underlie voluntary forgetting, i.e., direct suppression and thought substitution.