Time cell encoding in deep reinforcement learning agents depends on mnemonic demands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The representation of “what happened when” is central to encoding episodic and working memories. Recently discovered hippocampal time cells are theorized to provide the neural substrate for such representations by forming distinct sequences that both encode time elapsed and sensory content. However, little work has directly addressed to what extent cognitive demands and temporal structure of experimental tasks affect the emergence and informativeness of these temporal representations. Here, we trained deep reinforcement learning (DRL) agents on a simulated trial-unique nonmatch-to-location (TUNL) task, and analyzed the activities of artificial recurrent units using neuroscience-based methods. We show that, after training, representations resembling both time cells and ramping cells (whose activity increases or decreases monotonically over time) simultaneously emerged in the same population of recurrent units. Furthermore, with simulated variations of the TUNL task that controlled for (1) memory demands during the delay period and (2) the temporal structure of the episodes, we show that memory demands are necessary for the time cells to encode information about the sensory stimuli, while the temporal structure of the task only affected the encoding of “what” and “when” by time cells minimally. Our findings help to reconcile current discrepancies regarding the involvement of time cells in memory-encoding by providing a normative framework. Our modelling results also provide concrete experimental predictions for future studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".