MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768506563 · doi:10.1002/hipo.22818

Episodic autobiographical memory is associated with variation in the size of hippocampal subregions

2017· article· en· W2768506563 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniela J. Palombo, Agnes Bacopulos, Robert Amaral, Rosanna K. Olsen, Rebecca M. Todd, Adam K. Anderson, Brian Levine

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada Research ChairsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEpisodic memorySubiculumHippocampal formationAutobiographical memoryPsychologyNeuroscienceHippocampusSemantic memoryAssociation (psychology)Cognitive psychologyCognitionDentate gyrus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Striking individual differences exist in the human capacity to recollect past events, yet, little is known about the neural correlates of such individual differences. Studies investigating hippocampal volume in relation to individual differences in laboratory measures of episodic memory in young adults suggest that whole hippocampal volume is unrelated (or even negatively associated) with episodic memory. However, anatomical and functional specialization across hippocampal subregions suggests that individual differences in episodic memory may be linked to particular hippocampal subregions, as opposed to whole hippocampal volume. Given that the DG/CA 2/3 circuitry is thought to be especially critical for supporting episodic memory in humans, we predicted that the volume of this region would be associated with individual variability in episodic memory. This prediction was supported using high‐resolution MRI of the hippocampal subfields and measures of real‐world (autobiographical) episodic memory. In addition to the association with DG/CA 2/3 , we further observed a relationship between episodic autobiographical memory and subiculum volume, whereas no association was observed with CA 1 or with whole hippocampal volume. These findings provide insight into the possible neural substrates that mediate individual differences in real‐world episodic remembering in humans.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations52
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207