Recollection and prior knowledge recruit the left angular gyrus during recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The human angular gyrus (AG) is implicated in recollection, or our ability to retrieve detailed memory content from a specific study episode. Parallel work also highlights a key role of the AG in the representation of general knowledge and semantics. How these two lines of research converge remains unclear. The present fMRI experiment used a remember-know paradigm with famous and non-famous faces to test whether activity in the AG could be modulated by both task-specific recollection and general prior knowledge in the same participants. Increased BOLD activity in the left AG was observed during both recollection in the absence of prior knowledge (i.e., recollected > non-recollected or correctly rejected non-famous faces) and when prior knowledge was accessed in the absence of recollection (i.e., famous > non-famous correct rejections). This pattern was unique to the left AG, and was not present in any other regions of the lateral inferior parietal lobe. Furthermore, the response profile of the left AG was consistent with accounts of recollection strength. Recollection-related activity was greater for faces with longer exposures at encoding than those with shorter exposures and was greater for stimuli with prior knowledge than those without, despite prior knowledge being incidental to the recognition decision. Therefore, the left AG is recruited during the access of both task-specific recollection and general prior knowledge, with greater activity as the amount of retrieved information increases, irrespective of its episodic or semantic nature. Significance Statement The human angular gyrus (AG) is often implicated in our ability to remember past events. A separate line of research examining our ability to represent general knowledge has also highlighted the AG as a core region of interest. To reconcile these separate views of AG function, we used fMRI to test whether the human left AG was sensitive to remembering details from a specific study episode (i.e., recollection) or more general prior knowledge, within the same participants. Overall, activity in the left AG was sensitive to both recollection and prior knowledge, suggesting any complete functional account of the left AG during retrieval must consider its sensitivity to both kinds 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".