MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283769684 · doi:10.1111/epi.17357

Epilepsy disrupts hippocampal phase precision and impairs working memory

2022· article· en· W4283769684 on OpenAlexaff
Olivia N. Arski, Simeon M. Wong, Nebras M. Warsi, Elizabeth W. Pang, Elizabeth N. Kerr, Mary Lou Smith, Margot J. Taylor, Benjamin T. Dunkley, Ayako Ochi, Hiroshi Otsubo, Roy Sharma, Ivanna Yau, Puneet Jain, Elizabeth Donner, O. Carter Snead, George M. Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueEpilepsia · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationMental Health Research CanadaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorking memoryHippocampal formationNeurosciencePsychologyEpilepsyIctalCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Working memory deficits are prevalent in childhood epilepsy. Working memory processing is thought to be supported by the phase of hippocampal neural oscillations. Disruptions in working memory have previously been linked to the occurrence of transient epileptic activity. This study aimed to resolve the associations between oscillatory neural activity, transient epileptiform events, and working memory in children with epilepsy. METHODS: Intracranial recordings were acquired from stereotactically implanted electrodes in the hippocampi, epileptogenic zones, and working memory-related networks of children with drug-resistant epilepsy during a 1-back working memory task. Interictal epileptic activity was captured using automated detectors. Hippocampal phase and interregional connectivity within working memory networks were indexed by Rayleigh Z and the phase difference derivative, respectively. Trials with and without transient epileptiform events were compared. RESULTS: Twelve children (mean age = 14.3 ± 2.8 years) with drug-resistant epilepsy were included in the study. In the absence of transient epileptic activity, significant delta and theta hippocampal phase resetting occurred in response to working memory stimulus presentation (Rayleigh z-score = 9, Rayleigh z-score = 8). Retrieval trials that were in phase with the preferred phase angle were associated with faster reaction times (p = .01, p = .03). Concurrently, delta and theta coordinated interactions between the hippocampi and working memory-related networks were enhanced (phase difference derivative [PDD] z-scores = 6-11). During retrieval trials with pre-encoding or pre-retrieval transient epileptic activity, phase resetting was attenuated (Rayleigh z-score = 5, Rayleigh z-score = 1), interregional connectivity was altered (PDD z-scores = 1-3), and reaction times were prolonged (p = .01, p = .03). SIGNIFICANCE: This work highlights the role of hippocampal phase in working memory. We observe poststimulus hippocampal phase resetting coincident with enhanced interregional connectivity. The precision of hippocampal phase predicts optimal working memory processing, and transient epileptic activity prolongs working memory processing. These findings can help guide future treatments aimed at restoring memory function in this patient population.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpilepsiaSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207