Control of working memory by phase–amplitude coupling of human hippocampal neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Retaining information in working memory is a demanding process that relies on cognitive control to protect memoranda-specific persistent activity from interference 1,2 . However, how cognitive control regulates working memory storage is unclear. Here we show that interactions of frontal control and hippocampal persistent activity are coordinated by theta–gamma phase–amplitude coupling (TG-PAC). We recorded single neurons in the human medial temporal and frontal lobe while patients maintained multiple items in their working memory. In the hippocampus, TG-PAC was indicative of working memory load and quality. We identified cells that selectively spiked during nonlinear interactions of theta phase and gamma amplitude. The spike timing of these PAC neurons was coordinated with frontal theta activity when cognitive control demand was high. By introducing noise correlations with persistently active neurons in the hippocampus, PAC neurons shaped the geometry of the population code. This led to higher-fidelity representations of working memory content that were associated with improved behaviour. Our results support a multicomponent architecture of working memory 1,2 , with frontal control managing maintenance of working memory content in storage-related areas 3–5 . Within this framework, hippocampal TG-PAC integrates cognitive control and working memory storage across brain areas, thereby suggesting a potential mechanism for top-down control over sensory-driven processes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".