Recollective qualities modulate hippocampal activation during autobiographical memory retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent neuroimaging studies report preferential hippocampal engagement during autobiographical memory (AM) retrieval. Although the basis of this preferential activation remains unclear, it may be related to the temporal specificity, recency, or recollective qualities of AMs, such as detail, emotionality, and personal significance. Typically, however, these variables are confounded, and thus we sought to investigate the contributions of each to hippocampal activation during AM retrieval. We conducted an event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study in which participants retrieved temporally specific AMs and general, repeated AMs, and rated each for level of detail, emotion, or personal significance. These ratings, as well as the recency of AMs, were used in parametric modulation analyses to identify brain regions that correlated positively with ratings, independent of recency, and vice versa. Retrieval of AMs activated a number of regions, including the hippocampus. No differences in hippocampal activation were evident between specific and general AM retrieval, suggesting that temporal specificity, on its own, is not a key modulator of hippocampal activation. Activation of the left hippocampus during specific AM retrieval did vary with the level of detail, personal significance, and at a subthreshold level, emotionality, when the effect of recency was covaried out. Further, during general AM retrieval, all three recollective qualities modulated activity in the right hippocampus. Although the recency of specific AMs modulated hippocampal activation bilaterally, this effect dissipated in the left hippocampus when detail or emotionality was included as a covariate, and was no longer present in either hippocampus when personal significance was taken into account. Our results suggest that recollective qualities are important predictors of hippocampal engagement during AM retrieval independent of factors such as recency. These findings are consistent with theories of hippocampal function that emphasize its role in the recollection of multifaceted autobiographical experiences.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".