Coupling between slow waves and sharp-wave ripples engages distributed neural activity during sleep in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hippocampal-dependent memory consolidation during sleep is hypothesized to depend on the synchronization of distributed neuronal ensembles, organized by the hippocampal sharp-wave ripples (SWRs, 80 to 150 Hz), subcortical/cortical slow-wave activity (SWA, 0.5 to 4 Hz), and sleep spindles (SP, 7 to 15 Hz). However, the precise role of these interactions in synchronizing subcortical/cortical neuronal activity is unclear. Here, we leverage intracranial electrophysiological recordings from the human hippocampus, amygdala, and temporal and frontal cortices to examine activity modulation and cross-regional coordination during SWRs. Hippocampal SWRs are associated with widespread modulation of high-frequency activity (HFA, 70 to 200 Hz), a measure of local neuronal activation. This peri-SWR HFA modulation is predicted by the coupling between hippocampal SWRs and local subcortical/cortical SWA or SP. Finally, local cortical SWA phase offsets and SWR amplitudes predicted functional connectivity between the frontal and temporal cortex during individual SWRs. These findings suggest a selection mechanism wherein hippocampal SWR and cortical slow-wave synchronization governs the transient engagement of distributed neuronal populations supporting hippocampal-dependent memory consolidation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".