Rhythmic Temporal Cues Coordinate Cross-frequency Phase-amplitude Coupling during Memory Encoding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accumulating evidence suggests that rhythmic temporal cues in the environment influence the encoding of information into long-term memory. Here, we test the hypothesis that these mnemonic effects of rhythm reflect the coupling of high-frequency (gamma) oscillations to entrained lower-frequency oscillations synchronized to the beat of the rhythm. In Study 1, we first test this hypothesis in the context of global effects of rhythm on memory, when memory is superior for visual stimuli presented in rhythmic compared with arrhythmic patterns at encoding [Jones, A., & Ward, E. V. Rhythmic temporal structure at encoding enhances recognition memory, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31, 1549-1562, 2019]. We found that rhythmic presentation of visual stimuli during encoding was associated with greater phase-amplitude coupling (PAC) between entrained low-frequency (delta) oscillations and higher-frequency (gamma) oscillations. In Study 2, we next investigated cross-frequency PAC in the context of local effects of rhythm on memory encoding, when memory is superior for visual stimuli presented in-synchrony compared with out-of-synchrony with a background auditory beat [Hickey, P., Merseal, H., Patel, A. D., & Race, E. Memory in time: Neural tracking of low-frequency rhythm dynamically modulates memory formation. Neuroimage, 213, 116693, 2020]. We found that the mnemonic effect of rhythm in this context was again associated with increased cross-frequency PAC between entrained low-frequency (delta) oscillations and higher-frequency (gamma) oscillations. Furthermore, the magnitude of gamma power modulations positively scaled with the subsequent memory benefit for in- versus out-of-synchrony stimuli. Together, these results suggest that the influence of rhythm on memory encoding may reflect the temporal coordination of higher-frequency gamma activity by entrained low-frequency oscillations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".