fMRI evidence of equivalent neural suppression by repetition and prior knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Stimulus repetition speeds behavioral responding (behavioral priming) and is accompanied by suppressed neural responses (repetition suppression; RS) that have been observed up to three days after initial exposure. While some proposals have suggested the two phenomena are linked, behavioral priming has been observed many years after initial exposure, whereas RS is widely considered a transitory phenomenon. This raises the question: what is the true upper limit of RS persistence? To answer this question, we scanned healthy, English-native adults with fMRI as they viewed novel (Asian) proverbs, recently repeated (Asian) proverbs, and previously known (English) proverbs that were matched on various dimensions. We then estimated RS by comparing repeated or previously known proverbs against novel ones. Multivariate analyses linked previously known and repeated proverbs with statistically indistinguishable RS in a broad visual-linguistic network. In each suppressed region, prior knowledge and repetition also induced a common shift in functional connectivity, further underscoring the similarity of the RS phenomenon induced by these conditions. By contrast, activated regions readily distinguished prior knowledge and repetition conditions in a manner consistent with engagement of semantic and episodic memory systems, respectively. Our results illustrate that regardless of whether RS is understood in terms of its magnitude, spatial extent or functional connectivity profile, typical RS effects can be elicited even under conditions where recently triggered biological processes or episodic memory are unlikely to play a prominent role. These results provide important new evidence that RS (of the kind observed after an interval of at least several minutes) reflects the facilitation of perceptual and comprehension processes by any type of information retrieved from long-term memory.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".