MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403104748 · doi:10.1038/s41562-024-01983-9

Theta phase precession supports memory formation and retrieval of naturalistic experience in humans

2024· article· en· W4403104748 on OpenAlexaff
Jie Zheng, Mar Yebra, Andrea Gómez Palacio Schjetnan, Kramay Patel, Chaim N. Katz, Michael Kyzar, Clayton P. Mosher, Suneil K. Kalia, Jeffrey M. Chung, Chrystal M. Reed, Taufik A. Valiante, Adam N. Mamelak, Gabriel Kreiman, Ueli Rutishauser

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Human Behaviour · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsPsychologyNaturalismCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceCognitive scienceComputer sciencePhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Associating different aspects of experience with discrete events is critical for human memory. A potential mechanism for linking memory components is phase precession, during which neurons fire progressively earlier in time relative to theta oscillations. However, no direct link between phase precession and memory has been established. Here we recorded single-neuron activity and local field potentials in the human medial temporal lobe while participants (n = 22) encoded and retrieved memories of movie clips. Bouts of theta and phase precession occurred following cognitive boundaries during movie watching and following stimulus onsets during memory retrieval. Phase precession was dynamic, with different neurons exhibiting precession in different task periods. Phase precession strength provided information about memory encoding and retrieval success that was complementary with firing rates. These data provide direct neural evidence for a functional role of phase precession in human episodic memory.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature Human BehaviourSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207