The Human Medial Temporal Lobe Is Necessary for Remembering Durations within a Sequence of Events but Not Durations of Individual Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent interest in the role of the hippocampus in temporal aspects of cognition has been fueled, in part, by the observation of "time" cells in the rodent hippocampus-that is, cells that have differential firing patterns depending on how long ago an event occurred. Such cells are thought to provide an internal representation of elapsed time. Yet, the hippocampus is not needed for processing temporal duration information per se, at least on the order of seconds, as evidenced by intact duration judgments in rodents and humans with hippocampal damage. Rather, it has been proposed that the hippocampus may be essential for coding higher order aspects of temporal mnemonic processing, such as those needed to temporally organize a sequence of events that form an episode. To examine whether (1) the hippocampus uses duration information in the service of establishing temporal relations among events and (2) its role in memory for duration is unique to sequences, we tested amnesic patients with medial-temporal lobe damage (including the hippocampus). We hypothesized that medial-temporal lobe damage should impair the ability to remember sequential duration information but leave intact judgments about duration devoid of a sequential demand. We found that amnesics were impaired in making judgments about durations within a sequence but not in judging single durations. This impairment was not due to higher cognitive load associated with duration judgments about sequences. In convergence with rodent and human fMRI work, these findings shed light on how time coding in the hippocampus may contribute to temporal cognition.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".