MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012372661 · doi:10.1038/srep09063

Rightward-biased hemodynamic response of the parahippocampal system during virtual navigation

2015· article· en· W2012372661 on OpenAlexafffund
Travis E. Baker, Akina Umemoto, Adam Krawitz, Clay B. Holroyd

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsHemodynamicsHaemodynamic responseComputer scienceMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressureHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phase reset of parahippocampal electrophysiological oscillations in the theta frequency range is said to contribute to item encoding and retrieval during spatial navigation. Although well-studied in non-human animals, this mechanism is poorly understood in humans. Previously we found that feedback stimuli presented in a virtual maze environment elicited a burst of theta power over right-posterior areas of the human scalp, and that the power and phase angle of these oscillations were greater following right turns compared to left turns in the maze. Here we investigated the source of this effect with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Consistent with our predictions, we found that 1) feedback encountered in the maze task activated right parahippocampal cortex (PHC), 2) right PHC was more activated by rewards following right turns compared to left turns in the maze, and 3) the rightward-biased activation was more pronounced in individuals who displayed good spatial abilities. These findings support our previous electrophysiological findings and highlight, in humans, a role for PHC theta oscillations in encoding salient information for the purpose of spatial navigation.

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)0.000
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207