MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074256029 · doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.2.351

Modulation of Memory Formation by Stimulus Content: Specific Role of the Medial Prefrontal Cortex in the Successful Encoding of Social Pictures

2007· article· en· W2074256029 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe‐Olivier Harvey, Philippe Fossati, Martín Lepage

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPrefrontal cortexAmygdalaEncoding (memory)NeuroscienceFunctional magnetic resonance imagingStimulus (psychology)Cognitive psychologyNeuroimagingCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is unclear whether the involvement of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) during encoding is restricted to the evaluative processing of to-be-encoded stimuli or if it is instead actively engaged during memory formation. The difficulty of assessing the contribution of the mPFC to encoding based on previous neuroimaging studies partly arises from the use of several types of stimuli, such as emotional or social ones. These different types of stimulus content could differently modulate mPFC activity during memory formation and thus partly explain the variable contribution of this region to encoding. Using emotional/neutral and social/nonsocial pictures, we conducted an event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study using a subsequent memory paradigm as the main analytical strategy. We observed that the brain activity in the dorsal and orbital mPFC is significantly and specifically predictive of the successful encoding of social compared with nonsocial pictures. In contrast, the activity in the amygdala specifically predicts the successful encoding of emotional compared with neutral pictures. The modulation of the mPFC by social information in a memory encoding context could be associated with the initiation of self-referential processes whose contribution is to enhance memory formation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations59
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207