The medial prefrontal cortex leaves the hippocampus when it prepares for the future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our memories help us plan for the future. In some cases, we use memories to repeat the choices that led to preferable outcomes in the past. The success of these memory-guided decisions depends on close interactions between the hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex. In other cases, we need to use our memories to deduce hidden connections between the present and past situations to decide the best choice of action based on the expected outcome. Our recent study investigated neural underpinnings of such inferential decisions by monitoring neural activity in the medial prefrontal cortex and hippocampus in rats. We identified several neural activity patterns indicating awake memory trace reactivation and restructuring of functional connectivity among multiple neurons. We also found that these patterns occurred concurrently with the ongoing hippocampal activity when rats recalled past events but not when they planned new adaptive actions. Here, we discussed how these computational properties might contribute to success in inferential decision-making and propose a working model on how the medial prefrontal cortex changes its interaction with the hippocampus depending on whether it reflects on the past or looks into the future.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".