Time-resolved neural reinstatement and separation during memory decisions in human hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 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 would 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 both with the strength (HFA power) of hippocampal encoding and with the strength of hippocampal retrieval. 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. Significance Statement One of the biggest computational challenges the memory systems faces is to disambiguate highly similar experiences while at the same time preserving and reinstating prior memories. Remarkably, hippocampal processes have been implicated in both of these functions. However, how this is accomplished is unknown. Leveraging the spatiotemporal resolution of electrocorticography, we found evidence for memory reinstatement in both the hippocampus and occipitotemporal cortex. Reinstatement was differentiated in time across these two regions with earlier reinstatement evident in occipitotemporal cortex. Interestingly, when a current experience was very similar, but not identical to a prior one, occipitotemporal cortical activity still showed reinstatement of the prior memory but hippocampal activity differentiated or disambiguated these two similar experiences.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".