MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099420700 · doi:10.1073/pnas.97.1.506

Prefrontal cortex and episodic memory retrieval mode

2000· article· en· W2099420700 on OpenAlexaff
Martín Lepage, Omar Ghaffar, Lars Nyberg, Endel Tulving

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrefrontal cortexNeuroscienceEpisodic memoryInferior frontal gyrusPsychologyNeuroimagingFunctional neuroimagingFunctional magnetic resonance imagingCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A multistudy analysis of positron emission tomography data identified three right prefrontal and two left prefrontal cortical sites, as well as a region in the anterior cingulate gyrus, where neuronal activity is correlated with the maintenance of episodic memory retrieval mode (REMO), a basic and necessary condition of remembering past experiences. The right prefrontal sites were near the frontal pole [Brodmann's area (BA) 10], frontal operculum (BA 47/45), and lateral dorsal area (BA 8/9). The two left prefrontal sites were homotopical with the right frontal pole and opercular sites. The same kinds of REMO sites were not observed in any other cerebral region. Many previous functional neuroimaging studies of episodic memory retrieval have reported activations near the frontal REMO sites identified here, although their function has not been clear. Many of these, too, probably have signaled their involvement in REMO. We propose that REMO activations largely if not entirely account for the frontal hemispheric asymmetry of retrieval as described by the original hemispheric encoding retrieval asymmetry model.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations586
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207