MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128786519 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhh082

Remembering Our Past: Functional Neuroanatomy of Recollection of Recent and Very Remote Personal Events

2004· article· en· W2128786519 on OpenAlexafffund
Asaf Gilboa

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPsychologyPrecuneusRetrosplenial cortexHippocampusRecallAutobiographical memoryEpisodic memoryNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyLong-term memoryContext (archaeology)Functional neuroimagingNeuroimagingCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to study brain regions implicated in retrieval of memories that are decades old. To probe autobiographical memory, family photographs were selected by confederates without the participant's involvement, thereby eliminating many of the variables that potentially confounded previous neuroimaging studies. We found that context-rich memories were associated with activity in lingual and precuneus gyri independently of their age. By contrast, retrosplenial cortex was more active for recent events regardless of memory vividness. Hippocampal activation was related to the richness of re-experiencing (vividness) rather than the age of the memory per se. Remote memories were associated with distributed activation along the rostrocaudal axis of the hippocampus whereas activation associated with recent memories was clustered in the anterior portion. This may explain why circumscribed lesions to the hippocampus disproportionately affect recent memories. These findings are incompatible with theories of long-term memory consolidation, and are more easily accommodated by multiple-trace theory, which posits that detailed memories are always dependent on the hippocampus.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations467
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207