MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Temporal integration of narrative information in a hippocampal amnesic patient

2020· article· en· W3008360102 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiaoye Zuo, Christopher J. Honey, Morgan D. Barense, Davide Crombie, Kenneth A. Norman, Uri Hasson, Janice Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institute of Mental HealthJames S. McDonnell FoundationAlfred P. Sloan Foundation
KeywordsHippocampal formationNarrativePsychologyNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Default network regions appear to integrate information over time windows of 30 ​s or more during narrative listening. Does this long-timescale capability require the hippocampus? Amnesic behavior suggests that regions other than the hippocampus can independently support some online processing when input is continuous and semantically rich: amnesics can participate in conversations and tell stories spanning minutes, and when tested immediately on recently heard prose they are able to retain some information. We hypothesized that default network regions can integrate the semantically coherent information of a narrative across long time windows, even in the absence of an intact hippocampus. To test this prediction, we measured BOLD activity in the brain of a hippocampal amnesic patient (D.A.) and healthy control participants while they listened to a 7 min narrative. The narrative was played either in its intact form, or as a paragraph-scrambled version, which has been previously shown to interfere with the long-range temporal dependencies in default network activity. In the intact story condition, D.A.'s moment-by-moment BOLD activity spatial patterns were similar to those of controls in low-level auditory cortex as well as in some high-level default network regions (including lateral and medial posterior parietal cortex). Moreover, as in controls, D.A.'s response patterns in medial and lateral posterior parietal cortex were disrupted when paragraphs of the story were presented in a shuffled order, suggesting that activity in these areas did depend on information from 30 ​s or more in the past. Together, these results suggest that some default network cortical areas can integrate information across long timescales, even when the hippocampus is severely damaged.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207