MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123015170 · doi:10.1037/0894-4105.18.3.418

Hippocampal Function and Spatial Memory: Evidence From Functional Neuroimaging in Healthy Participants and Performance of Patients With Medial Temporal Lobe Resections.

2004· article· en· W2123015170 on OpenAlexaff
Véronique D. Bohbot, Giuseppe Iaria, Michael Petrides

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTemporal lobeNeuroscienceHippocampal formationHippocampusNeuropsychologyNeuroimagingSpatial memoryCognitive psychologySpatial cognitionEpisodic memoryCognitionWorking memoryEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several strategies can be used to find a destination in the environment. Using a virtual environment, the authors identified 2 strategies dependent on 2 different memory systems. A spatial strategy involved the use of multiple landmarks available in the environment, and a response strategy involved right and left turns from a given start position. Although a probe trial provided an objective measure of the strategy used, classification that was based on verbal reports was used in small groups to avoid risks of misclassification. The authors first demonstrated that the spatial strategy led to a significant activity of the hippocampus, whereas the response strategy led to a sustained activity in the caudate nucleus. Then, the authors administered the task to 15 patients with lesions to the medial temporal lobe, showing an impaired ability using the spatial strategy. Imaging and neuropsychological results are discussed to shed light on the human navigation system.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.313
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations275
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologySame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207