MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983589307 · doi:10.1002/hipo.10077

Differential contributions of the parahippocampal place area and the anterior hippocampus to human memory for scenes

2002· article· en· W1983589307 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefan Köhler, Joelle Crane, Brenda Milner

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council CanadaFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsNeurosciencePsychologyHippocampal formationRecognition memoryTemporal lobeNoveltyEpisodic memoryStimulus (psychology)Parahippocampal gyrusHippocampusNeuroimagingCognitive psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Past neuroimaging research has identified a parahippocampal place area (PPA) in the posterior medial temporal lobe (MTL), which responds preferentially to visual scenes and plays a role in episodic memory for this class of stimuli. In the present positron emission tomography study, we examined to what extent the functional characteristics of the PPA resemble those of other, more anterior MTL regions across various learning and recognition-memory tasks. We also determined whether the involvement of the PPA in recognition of previously studied scenes is specific to a particular type of scene information. We found that, like the PPA, anterior hippocampal regions showed a novelty response (higher activation for novel than repeated scenes) and a stimulus-related response (higher activation for scenes than objects) during learning, indicating that MTL structures other than the PPA contribute to the encoding of novel stimulus relationships in scenes. However, these anterior hippocampal regions showed no involvement during recognition of either spatial or nonspatial information contained in scenes. The PPA, by contrast, was consistently involved in recognition of all types of scene details, presumably through interactions with co-activated parietal and occipitotemporal cortices. We suggest that MTL contributions from the PPA are sufficient to support recognition of scenes when the task can be based on a perceptually based familiarity process.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations121
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207