Disk-Drive-Like Operations in the Hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The rapid computation of re-playable memories within the hippocampus in the form of spike sequences is a near computer-like operation. Information can be encoded once during the initial experience, and replayed numerous times after in a compressed-time representation [1–8]. Theta oscillations, sharp-wave ripples, and attractor dynamics have been posited to collectively play a role in the formation and replay of memories. However, the precise interplay between these dynamical states remains elusive. Here, we show that the memory formation dynamics and operations of the hippocampus are not just computer-like, but map directly onto the dynamics and operations of a disk-drive. We constructed a tripartite spiking neural network model where the hippocampus is explicitly described as a disk drive with a rotating disk, an actuator arm, and a read/write head. In this Neural Disk Drive (NDD) model, hippocampal oscillations map to disk rotations in the rotating disk network while attractor dynamics in the actuator arm network point to “tracks” (spike assemblies) on the disk. The read/write head then writes information onto these tracks, which have temporally-structured spikes. Tracks can be replayed during hippocampal ripples for consolidation. We confirmed the existence of interneuron-ring-sequences, predicted by the rotating disk network, in experimental data. Our results establish the hippocampus as a brain region displaying explicit, computer-like operations. Based on the known interactions between the hippocampus and other brain areas, we anticipate that our results may lead to additional models that revisit the hypothesis that the brain performs explicit, computer-like operations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".