MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762196007 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1717088115

Time-resolved neural reinstatement and pattern separation during memory decisions in human hippocampus

2018· article· en· W2762196007 on OpenAlexaff
Lynn J. Lohnas, Katherine Duncan, Werner Doyle, Thomas Thesen, Orrin Devinsky, Lila Davachi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsHippocampal formationHippocampusEpisodic memoryNeurosciencePsychologyElectrocorticographySemantic memoryNeural activityComputer scienceCognitive psychologyElectroencephalographyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mnemonic decision-making has long been hypothesized to rely on hippocampal dynamics that bias memory processing toward the formation of new memories or the retrieval of old ones. Successful memory encoding may be best optimized by pattern separation, whereby two highly similar experiences can be represented by underlying neural populations in an orthogonal manner. By contrast, successful memory retrieval is thought to be supported by a recovery of the same neural pattern laid down during encoding. Here we examined how hippocampal pattern completion and separation emerge over time during memory decisions. We measured electrocorticography activity in the human hippocampus and posterior occipitotemporal cortex (OTC) while participants performed continuous recognition of items that were new, repeated (old), or highly similar to a prior item (similar). During retrieval decisions of old items, both regions exhibited significant reinstatement of multivariate high-frequency activity (HFA) associated with encoding. Further, the extent of reinstatement of encoding patterns during retrieval was correlated with the strength (HFA power) of hippocampal encoding. Evidence for encoding pattern reinstatement was also seen in OTC on trials requiring fine-grained discrimination of similar items. By contrast, hippocampal activity showed evidence for pattern separation during these trials. Together, these results underscore the critical role of the hippocampus in supporting both reinstatement of overlapping information and separation of similar events.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations72
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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