Feature-Specific Neural Reactivation during Episodic Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When recalling an experience of the past, many of the component features of the original episode may be, to a greater or lesser extent, reconstructed in the mind’s eye. There is strong evidence that the pattern of neural activity that occurred during an initial perceptual experience is recreated during episodic recall (neural reactivation), and that the degree of reactivation is correlated with the subjective vividness of the memory. However, while we know that reactivation occurs during episodic recall, we have lacked a way of precisely characterizing the contents—in terms of its featural constituents—of a reactivated memory. Here we present a novel approach, feature-specific informational connectivity (FSIC), that leverages hierarchical representations of image stimuli derived from a deep convolutional neural network to decode neural reactivation in f MRI data collected while participants performed an episodic recall task. We show that neural reactivation associated with low-level visual features (e.g. edges), high-level visual features (e.g. facial features), and semantic features (e.g. “terrier”) occur throughout the dorsal and ventral visual streams and extend into the frontal cortex. Moreover, we show that reactivation of both low- and high-level visual features correlate with the vividness of the memory, whereas only reactivation of low-level features correlates with recognition accuracy when the lure and target images are semantically similar. In addition to demonstrating the utility of FSIC for mapping feature-specific reactivation, these findings resolve the relative contributions of low- and high-level features to the vividness of visual memories, clarify the role of the frontal cortex during episodic recall, and challenge a strict interpretation the posterior-to-anterior visual hierarchy.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".