Theta rhythm across the species: Bridging inconsistencies with a multiple memory systems approach.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discovery of movement-modulated 7-8 Hz theta rhythm in rodents provided one of the earliest indications of synchronicity of neuronal firing in the hippocampus. Subsequent research expanded on this finding on theta rhythm and its role in other domains such as spatial navigation and memory. Nevertheless, discrepancies among animal models posed the question of how well the animal literature represents human mechanisms. Technological advances have since facilitated research taking place directly in humans, typically neurosurgical patients implanted with intracranial electrodes. Human studies have observed lower frequency oscillations in participants engaged in virtual spatial navigation studies, compared to the 7-8 Hz oscillations seen in rodents. Recently, research in humans engaged in real-world task demonstrating 7-9 Hz oscillations infer that the previously observed lower frequency theta may have been constrained by the absence of movement-related processing that occurs in physical activities. Together, these findings suggest that humans may indeed be more similar to rodent models than previously reported when completing tasks more analogous to those used in rodent experiments. This review summarizes early work on theta rhythm across species and outlines certain remaining discrepancies as well as a novel proposed hypothesis of the behavioral correlates of theta rhythm, taking a multiple memory systems perspective. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".