Dynamic updating of hippocampal object representations reflects new conceptual knowledge
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concepts organize the relationship among individual stimuli or events by highlighting shared features. Often, new goals require updating conceptual knowledge to reflect relationships based on different goal-relevant features. Here, our aim is to determine how hippocampal (HPC) object representations are organized and updated to reflect changing conceptual knowledge. Participants learned two classification tasks in which successful learning required attention to different stimulus features, thus providing a means to index how representations of individual stimuli are reorganized according to changing task goals. We used a computational learning model to capture how people attended to goal-relevant features and organized object representations based on those features during learning. Using representational similarity analyses of functional magnetic resonance imaging data, we demonstrate that neural representations in left anterior HPC correspond with model predictions of concept organization. Moreover, we show that during early learning, when concept updating is most consequential, HPC is functionally coupled with prefrontal regions. Based on these findings, we propose that when task goals change, object representations in HPC can be organized in new ways, resulting in updated concepts that highlight the features most critical to the new goal.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it