MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cortical Overlap and Cortical-Hippocampal Interactions Predict Subsequent True and False Memory

2020· article· en· W3001207699 on OpenAlexaff
Erik A. Wing, Benjamin R. Geib, Wei‐Chun Wang, Zachary A. Monge, Simon W. Davis, Roberto Cabeza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsNeuroscienceHippocampal formationPsychologyCortical neurons

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The declarative memory system allows us to accurately recognize a countless number of items and events, particularly those strengthened by repeated exposure. However, increased familiarity due to repetition can also lead to false recognition of related but new items, particularly when mechanisms supporting fine-grain mnemonic discrimination fail. The hippocampus is thought to be particularly important in separating overlapping cortical inputs during encoding so that similar experiences can be differentiated. In the current study of male and female human subjects, we examine how neural pattern similarity between repeated exemplars of a given concept (e.g., apple) influences true and false memory for target or lure images. Consistent with past work, we found that subsequent true recognition was related to pattern similarity between concept exemplars and the entire encoding set (global encoding similarity), particularly in ventral visual stream. In addition, memory for an individual target exemplar (a specific apple) could be predicted solely by the degree of pattern overlap between the other exemplars (different apple pictures) of that concept (concept-specific encoding similarity). Critically, subsequent false memory for lures was mitigated when high concept-specific similarity in cortical areas was accompanied by differentiated hippocampal representations of the corresponding exemplars. Furthermore, both true and false memory entailed the reinstatement of concept-related information at varying levels of specificity. These results link both true and false memory to a measure of concept strength expressed in the overlap of cortical representations, and importantly, illustrate how the hippocampus serves to separate concurrent cortical overlap in the service of detailed memory. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT In some instances, the same processes that help promote memory for a general idea or concept can also hinder more detailed memory judgments, which may involve differentiating between closely related items. The current study shows that increased overlap in cortical representations for conceptually-related pictures is associated with increased recognition of repeated concept pictures. Whether similar lure items were falsely remembered as old further depended on the hippocampus, where the presence of more distinct representations protected against later false memory. This work suggests that the differentiability of brain patterns during perception is related to the differentiability of items in memory, but that fine-grain discrimination depends on the interaction between cortex and hippocampus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207