MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mechanisms of Persistent Activity in Cortical Circuits: Possible Neural Substrates for Working Memory

2017· review· en· W2617413315 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Neuroscience · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsNeuroscienceBiological neural networkWorking memoryStimulus (psychology)PsychologyNeural activityCognitive psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A commonly observed neural correlate of working memory is firing that persists after the triggering stimulus disappears. Substantial effort has been devoted to understanding the many potential mechanisms that may underlie memory-associated persistent activity. These rely either on the intrinsic properties of individual neurons or on the connectivity within neural circuits to maintain the persistent activity. Nevertheless, it remains unclear which mechanisms are at play in the many brain areas involved in working memory. Herein, we first summarize the palette of different mechanisms that can generate persistent activity. We then discuss recent work that asks which mechanisms underlie persistent activity in different brain areas. Finally, we discuss future studies that might tackle this question further. Our goal is to bridge between the communities of researchers who study either single-neuron biophysical, or neural circuit, mechanisms that can generate the persistent activity that underlies working 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.203 · 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