Hippocampal complex and retrieval of recent and very remote autobiographical memories: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging in neurologically intact people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been argued that the role of the hippocampus in memory is time-limited: during a period of memory consolidation, other brain regions such as the neocortex are said to acquire the ability to support memory retention and retrieval on their own. An alternative view is that retention and retrieval of memory for autobiographical episodes depend on the hippocampal complex, regardless of the age of the memory. We examined the participation of the hippocampal complex in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study in which participants were asked to recollect autobiographical events that occurred either within the last 4 years or more than 20 years ago. We found equivalent levels of hippocampal activation in both conditions in all participants (N = 10). In addition, activation in neocortical regions did not differ as a function of the age of the memory, even though most of the recent memories recalled were less than 2 years old and the remote memories more than 35 years old. The results support the notion that the hippocampal complex participates in retention and recovery of even very old autobiographical memories, and place boundary conditions on theories of memory consolidation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".