MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3134001590 · doi:10.1101/2021.02.28.433226

Concurrent feature-specific reactivation within the hippocampus and neocortex facilitates episodic memory retrieval

2021· preprint· en· W3134001590 on OpenAlexaff
Michael B. Bone, Bradley R. Buchsbaum

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHippocampusEpisodic memoryNeocortexNeuroscienceHippocampal formationRecognition memoryComputer sciencePsychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The hippocampus is a key brain region for the storage and retrieval of episodic memories, but how it performs this function is unresolved. According to the hippocampal indexing theory, the hippocampus stores an event-specific index of the pattern of neocortical activity that occurred during perception. During retrieval, reactivation of the index by a partial cue facilitates the reactivation of the associated neocortical pattern. Therefore, event-specific retrieval requires joint reactivation of the hippocampal index and the associated neocortical networks. To test this theory, we examine the relation between performance on a recognition memory task requiring retrieval of image-specific visual details and feature-specific reactivation within the hippocampus and neocortex. We show that trial-by-trial recognition accuracy correlates with neural reactivation of low-level features (e.g. luminosity and edges) within the posterior hippocampus and early visual cortex for participants with high recognition lure accuracy. As predicted, the two regions interact, such that recognition accuracy correlates with hippocampal reactivation only when reactivation co-occurs within the early visual cortex (and vice-versa). In addition to supporting the hippocampal indexing theory, our findings show large individual differences in the features underlying visual memory and suggest that the anterior and posterior hippocampus represents gist-like and detailed features, respectively.

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)0.002
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
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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