Hippocampal and neocortical oscillatory contributions to visuospatial binding and comparison.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over 50 years of research has revealed a critical role for the hippocampus in the formation of long-term declarative memories. More recent evidence has specified the functions of the hippocampus as the binding and comparison of memory representations that may be used under shorter, as well as longer, delays (Olsen, Moses, Riggs, & Ryan, 2012). Hippocampal neural oscillations (e.g., theta rhythm) have been studied extensively in animals; however, the oscillations that underlie binding, comparison, and their relationship to memory performance remain to be fully explored in humans. Here magnetoencephalography was used to examine theta oscillations within the hippocampus and cortex to address this critical gap in the literature. The task consisted of (a) an encoding phase in which participants had to integrate the relative spatial positions among 3 sequentially presented objects, (b) a delay phase, and (c) a test phase in which all study objects were presented simultaneously in novel locations, and participants had to indicate whether the relative positions had changed. Theta power in the hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex (PFC) increased across encoding and delay periods during which binding and maintenance processes dominate, while comparison of spatial relations at test was associated with greater theta power in right lateral PFC and intraparietal sulcus for manipulated versus intact trials. Critically, relational memory was positively related to hippocampal theta power increases across the encoding period. These findings provide novel evidence for the role of hippocampal theta in the incremental formation and retention of relations across space and time.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".