MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092478150 · doi:10.1101/2020.10.11.335166

Schemas provide a scaffold for neocortical integration at the cost of memory specificity over time

2020· preprint· en· W3092478150 on OpenAlexafffund
Sam Audrain, Mary Pat McAndrews

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPrefrontal cortexSchema (genetic algorithms)HippocampusNeuroscienceMemory consolidationPsychologyHippocampal formationSemantic memoryComputer scienceRecallLong-term memoryCognitive psychologyCognitionInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Memory transformation is increasingly acknowledged in theoretical accounts of systems consolidation, yet how memory quality and neural representation change over time and how schemas influence this process remains unclear. In this fMRI study, participants encoded and retrieved schema-congruent and incongruent object-scene pairs using a paradigm that probed coarse and detailed memories over 10-minutes and 72-hours. When a congruent schema was available, details were lost over time as representations were integrated in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), and enhanced post-encoding coupling between the anterior hippocampus and mPFC was associated with coarser memories. Over time, pattern similarity in the hippocampus changed such that the posterior hippocampus represented specific details and the anterior hippocampus represented the general context of specific memories, irrespective of congruency. Our findings suggest schemas are used as a scaffold for accelerated consolidation of congruent information, and illustrate change in hippocampal organization of detailed contextual memory over time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.276
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207