Learning exceptions to the rule in human and model via hippocampal encoding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Category learning helps us process the influx of information we experience daily. A commonly encountered category structure is “rule-plus-exceptions,” in which most items follow a general rule, but exceptions violate this rule. People are worse at learning to categorize exceptions than rule-following items, but improved exception categorization has been positively associated with hippocampal function. In light of model-based predictions that the nature of existing memories of related experiences should impact memory formation, here we use behavioural and computational modelling data to explore the impact of learning sequence on performance in a rule-plus-exception categorization task. Our behavioural results indicate that exception categorization accuracy improves when exceptions are introduced later in learning, after exposure to rule-following stimuli. Simulations of this task using a computational model of hippocampus replicate these behavioural findings. Representational similarity analysis of the model’s hidden layers, which correspond to hippocampal subfields, suggests that model representations are impacted by trial sequence: delaying the introduction of an exception shifts its representation closer to those of its own category members; this finding corroborates the superior categorization behaviour observed for delayed exceptions. Our results provide novel computational evidence of HC’s sensitivity to learning sequence and further support HC’s proposed role in category learning.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".