MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398209529 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-48367-1

Hippocampal sharp-wave ripples correlate with periods of naturally occurring self-generated thoughts in humans

2024· article· en· W4398209529 on OpenAlexaff
Takamitsu Iwata, Takufumi Yanagisawa, Yuji Ikegaya, Jonathan Smallwood, Ryohei Fukuma, Satoru Oshino, Naoki Tani, Hui Ming Khoo, Haruhiko Kishima

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMind wandering and attention
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersMoonshot Research and Development ProgramExploratory Research for Advanced TechnologyCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyJapan Science and Technology AgencyJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyUniversity of TokyoJapan Agency for Medical Research and Development
KeywordsHippocampusHippocampal formationCognitionNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyTask (project management)Focus (optics)PsychologyEpilepsyAssociation (psychology)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Core features of human cognition highlight the importance of the capacity to focus on information distinct from events in the here and now, such as mind wandering. However, the brain mechanisms that underpin these self-generated states remain unclear. An emerging hypothesis is that self-generated states depend on the process of memory replay, which is linked to sharp-wave ripples (SWRs), which are transient high-frequency oscillations originating in the hippocampus. Local field potentials were recorded from the hippocampus of 10 patients with epilepsy for up to 15 days, and experience sampling was used to describe their association with ongoing thought patterns. The SWR rates were higher during extended periods of time when participants' ongoing thoughts were more vivid, less desirable, had more imaginable properties, and exhibited fewer correlations with an external task. These data suggest a role for SWR in the patterns of ongoing thoughts that humans experience in daily life.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations29
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicMind wandering and attentionFrench-language works237,207