Spatial memory: A Rosetta stone for rat and human hippocampal discourse: Theoretical comment on Goodrich-Hunsaker and Hopkins (2010).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article by Goodrich-Hunsaker and Hopkins (2010, this issue) takes up an important place among in the recent contributions on the role of the hippocampus in memory. They evaluate the effect of bilateral damage to the hippocampus on performance by human participants in a virtual 8-arm radial maze. The hippocampal damage appears to be highly selective and nearly complete. Exactly as with selective hippocampal damage in rats, the human participants showed a deficit in accurately choosing rewarded versus never-rewarded arms and a deficit in avoiding reentering recently visited arms. The results are triply significant: (1) They provide good support for the idea that the wealth of neurobiological information, from network to synapse to gene, on spatial memory in the rat may apply as a whole to the human hippocampal memory system; (2) They affirm the utility of human virtual task models of rat spatial memory tasks; (3) They support one interpretation of the dampening of the hippocampal functional MRI (fMRI) blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) signal during performance of the virtual radial arm maze observed by Astur et al. (2005).
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.049 | 0.062 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
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".