MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4294507411 · doi:10.1101/2022.08.31.506090

Re-expression of CA1 and entorhinal activity patterns preserves temporal context memory at long timescales

2022· preprint· en· W4294507411 on OpenAlexaff
Futing Zou, Wanjia Guo, Emily Allen, Yihan Wu, Ian Charest, Thomas Naselaris, Kendrick Kay, Brice A. Kuhl, Ben Hutchinson, Sarah DuBrow

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEntorhinal cortexTemporal lobeHippocampal formationTemporal cortexHippocampusNeuroscienceContext (archaeology)Recognition memoryPsychologyCoding (social sciences)Cognitive psychologyComputer scienceCognitionBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Converging, cross-species evidence indicates that memory for time is supported by hippocampal area CA1 and entorhinal cortex. However, limited evidence characterizes how these regions preserve temporal memories over long timescales (e.g., months). At long timescales, memoranda may be encountered in multiple temporal contexts, potentially creating interference. Here, using 7T fMRI, we measured CA1 and entorhinal activity patterns as human participants viewed thousands of natural scene images distributed, and repeated, across many months. We show that memory for an image’s original temporal context was predicted by the degree to which CA1/entorhinal activity patterns from the first encounter with an image were re-expressed during re-encounters occurring minutes to months later. Critically, temporal memory signals were dissociable from predictors of recognition confidence, which were carried by distinct medial temporal lobe expressions. These findings suggest that CA1 and entorhinal cortex preserve temporal memories across long timescales by coding for and reinstating temporal context information.

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 score0.004

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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