MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146481859 · doi:10.1002/hipo.20098

Novelty responses to relational and non-relational information in the hippocampus and the parahippocampal region: A comparison based on event-related fMRI

2005· article· en· W2146481859 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Köhler, Stacey L. Danckert, Joseph S. Gati, Ravi S. Menon

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerirhinal cortexNoveltyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPsychologyNeuroscienceParahippocampal gyrusTemporal lobeHippocampusRecognition memoryNovelty detectionFunctional specializationCognitive psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted two functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiments that examined novelty responses in the human medial temporal lobe (MTL) to determine whether the hippocampus makes contributions to memory processing that differ from those of structures in the adjacent parahippocampal region. In light of proposals that such differential contributions may pertain to relational processing demands, we assessed event-related fMRI responses in the MTL for novel single objects and for novel spatial and non-spatial object relationships; subjects were asked to detect these different types of novelties among previously studied items, and they successfully performed this task during scanning. A double dissociation that emerged from the response pattern of regions in the hippocampus and perirhinal cortex provided the strongest support for functional specialization in the MTL. A region in the right middle hippocampus responded to the novelty of spatial and non-spatial relationships but not to the novelty of individual objects. By contrast, a region in right perirhinal cortex, situated in the anterior collateral sulcus, responded to the novelty of individual objects but not to that of either type of relationship. Other MTL regions that responded to novelty in the present study showed no reliable difference in their response to the various novelty types; these regions included anterior parts of the hippocampus and posterior aspects of parahippocampal cortex. Together, our findings indicate that relational processing demands are a critical determinant of functional specialization in the human MTL. They also suggest, however, that a neuroanatomical framework that only distinguishes between the hippocampus and the parahippocampal region is not sufficiently refined to account for all functional differences and similarities observed with respect to relational processes in the human MTL.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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

Citations167
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207