eLife Assessment: Neural Correlates and Reinstatement of Recent and Remote Memory: A Comparison Between Children and Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Memory consolidation tends to be less robust in childhood than adulthood. However, little is known about the corresponding functional differences in the developing brain that may underlie age-related differences in retention of memories over time. This study examined system-level memory consolidation of object-scene associations after learning (immediate delay), one night of sleep (short delay), as well as two weeks (long delay) in 5-to-7-year-old children (n = 49) and in young adults (n = 39), as a reference group with mature consolidation systems. Particularly, we characterized how functional neural activation and reinstatement of neural patterns change over time, assessed by functional magnetic resonance imaging combined with representational similarity analysis (RSA). Our results showed that memory consolidation in children was less robust and strong (i.e., more forgetting) compared to young adults. Contrasting correctly retained remote versus recent memories across time delay, children showed less upregulation in posterior parahippocampal gyrus, lateral occipital cortex, and cerebellum than adults. In addition, both children and adults showed decrease in scene-specific neural reinstatement over time, indicating time-related decay of detailed differentiated memories. At the same time, we observed more generic gist-like neural reinstatement in medial-temporal and prefrontal brain regions uniquely in children, indicating qualitative difference in memory trace in children. Taken together, 5-to-7-year-old children, compared to young adults, show less robust memory consolidation, possibly due to difficulties in engaging in differentiated neural reinstatement in neocortical mnemonic regions during retrieval of remote memories, coupled with relying more on gist-like generic neural reinstatement.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".