A computational principle for hippocampal learning and neurogenesis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it