MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142819088 · doi:10.1002/hipo.20347

Perirhinal and hippocampal contributions to visual recognition memory can be distinguished from those of occipito‐temporal structures based on conscious awareness of prior occurrence

2007· article· en· W2142819088 on OpenAlexaff
Stacey L. Danckert, Joseph S. Gati, Ravi S. Menon, Stefan Köhler

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerirhinal cortexPsychologyRecognition memoryTemporal lobeNeuroscienceFunctional magnetic resonance imagingCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionCognitive psychologyTemporal cortexNeuroimagingCognitionObject (grammar)Artificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability of humans to distinguish consciously between new and previously encountered objects can be probed with visual recognition memory tasks that require explicit old-new discriminations. Medial temporal-lobe (MTL) lesions impair performance on such tasks. Within the MTL, both perirhinal cortex and the hippocampus have been implicated. Cognitive processes can also be affected by past object encounters in the absence of conscious recognition, as in repetition priming tasks. Past functional neuroimaging findings in healthy individuals suggest that even in tasks that require conscious recognition decisions for visual stimuli, posterior cortical structures in the ventral visual pathway distinguish between old and new objects at a nonconscious level. Conclusive evidence that differentiates the neural underpinnings of conscious from nonconscious processes in recognition memory, however, is still missing. In particular, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) findings for the MTL have been inconsistent towards this end. In the present fMRI study, we tested whether perirhinal and hippocampal contributions to recognition memory can be distinguished from those of occipito-temporal structures in the ventral visual pathway based on the participants' reported conscious awareness of prior occurrence. Images of objects with a large degree of feature overlap served as stimuli; they were selected to ensure an involvement of perirhinal cortex in the present recognition task, based on evidence from past lesion-based research. We found that both perirhinal cortex and occipito-temporal cortex showed a differential old-new response that reflected a repetition-related decrease in activity (i.e., new > old). Whereas in perirhinal cortex this decrease was observed with respect to whether subjects reported objects to be old or new, irrespective of the true item status, in occipito-temporal cortex it occurred in relation to whether objects were truly old or new, irrespective of the participants' conscious reports. Hippocampal responses differed in their exact pattern from those of perirhinal cortex, but were also related to the conscious recognition reports. These results indicate that both perirhinal and hippocampal contributions can be distinguished from those of occipito-temporal structures in the ventral visual pathway based on the participants' reported conscious awareness of prior occurrence.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

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

Citations44
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207