MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153597729 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0804546105

Medial temporal lobe BOLD activity at rest predicts individual differences in memory ability in healthy young adults

2008· article· en· W2153597729 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gagan S. Wig, Scott T. Grafton, Kathryn E. Demos, George Wolford, Steven E. Petersen, William M. Kelley

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDartmouth CollegeNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMnemonicPsychologyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingTemporal lobeCognitionNeurophysiologyNeuroscienceAudiologyBlood-oxygen-level dependentRecallCognitive psychologyRecognition memoryEpisodic memoryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human beings differ in their ability to form and retrieve lasting long-term memories. To explore the source of these individual differences, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) activity in healthy young adults (n = 50) during periods of resting fixation that were interleaved with periods of simple cognitive tasks. We report that medial temporal lobe BOLD activity during periods of rest predicts individual differences in memory ability. Specifically, individuals who exhibited greater magnitudes of task-induced deactivations in medial temporal lobe BOLD signal (as compared to periods of rest) demonstrated superior memory during offline testing. This relationship was independent of differences in general cognitive function and persisted across different control tasks (i.e., number judgment versus checkerboard detection) and experimental designs (i.e., blocked versus event-related). These results offer a neurophysiological basis for the variability in mnemonic ability that is present amongst healthy young adults and may help to guide strategies aimed at early detection and intervention of neurological and mnemonic impairment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.177 · 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.

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

Citations61
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207