Dynamic Neural Network Reconfiguration During the Generation and Reinstatement of Mnemonic Representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mnemonic representations allow humans to re-experience the past or simulate future scenarios by integrating episodic features from memory. Theoretical models posit that mnemonic representations require dynamic processing between neural indexes in the hippocampus and areas of the cortex providing specialized information processing. However, it remains unknown whether global and local network topology varies as information is encoded into a mnemonic representation and subsequently reinstated. Here, we investigated the dynamic nature of memory networks while a representation of a virtual city is generated and reinstated during mental simulations. We find that the brain reconfigures from a state of heightened integration when encoding demands are highest, to a state of localized processing once representations are formed. This reconfiguration is associated with changes in hippocampal centrality at the intra- and inter-module level, decreasing its role as a connector hub between modules and within a hippocampal neighborhood as encoding demands lessen. During mental simulations, we found increased levels of hippocampal centrality within its local neighborhood coupled with decreased functional interactions between other regions of the neighborhood during highly vivid simulations, suggesting that information flow vis-à-vis the hippocampus is critical for high fidelity recapitulation of mnemonic representations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".