MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084165391 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2009576117

Rapid hippocampal plasticity supports motor sequence learning

2020· article· en· W3084165391 on OpenAlexafffund
Florencia Jacobacci, Jorge L. Armony, Abraham Yeffal, Gonzalo Lerner, Edson Amaro, Jorge Jovicich, Julien Doyon, Valeria Della‐Maggiore

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersFondo para la Investigación Científica y TecnológicaMinisterio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación ProductivaRéseau en Bio-Imagerie du Quebec
KeywordsComputer scienceHippocampusMechanism (biology)Sequence learningNeuroscienceHippocampal formationSequence (biology)NeuroplasticityOffline learningCognitive psychologyPsychologyMultimediaBiologyOnline learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent evidence suggests that gains in performance observed while humans learn a novel motor sequence occur during the quiet rest periods interleaved with practice (micro-offline gains, MOGs). This phenomenon is reminiscent of memory replay observed in the hippocampus during spatial learning in rodents. Whether the hippocampus is also involved in the production of MOGs remains currently unknown. Using a multimodal approach in humans, here we show that activity in the hippocampus and the precuneus increases during the quiet rest periods and predicts the level of MOGs before asymptotic performance is achieved. These functional changes were followed by rapid alterations in brain microstructure in the order of minutes, suggesting that the same network that reactivates during the quiet periods of training undergoes structural plasticity. Our work points to the involvement of the hippocampal system in the reactivation of procedural memories.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations120
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207