Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the three decades since Marr put forward his computational theory of hippocampal coding, many computational models have been built on the same key principles proposed by Marr: sparse representations, rapid Hebbian storage, associative recall and consolidation. Most of these models have focused on either the CA3 or CA1 fields, using "off-the-shelf" learning algorithms such as competitive learning or Hebbian pattern association. Here, we propose a novel coding principle that is common to all hippocampal regions, and from this one principal, we derive learning rules for each of the major pathways within the hippocampus. The learning rules turn out to have much in common with several models of CA3 and CA1 in the literature, and provide a unifying framework in which to view these models. Simulations of the complete circuit confirm that both recognition memory and recall are superior relative to a hippocampally lesioned model, consistent with human data. Further, we propose a functional role for neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus (DG), namely, to create distinct memory traces for highly similar items. Our simulation results support our prediction that memory capacity increases with the number of dentate granule cells, while neuronal turnover with a fixed dentate layer size improves recall, by minimizing interference between highly similar items.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".