Inducing representational change in the hippocampus through real-time neurofeedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When you perceive or remember something, other related things come to mind, affecting how these competing items are subsequently perceived and remembered. Such behavioural consequences are believed to result from changes in the overlap of neural representations of these items, especially in the hippocampus. According to multiple theories, hippocampal overlap should increase (integration) when there is high coactivation between cortical representations. However, prior studies used indirect proxies for coactivation by manipulating stimulus similarity or task demands. Here, we induce coactivation in visual cortex more directly using closed-loop neurofeedback from real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). While viewing one object, participants were rewarded for activating the representation of another object as strongly as possible. Across multiple real-time fMRI sessions, participants succeeded in using this neurofeedback to increase coactivation. Compared with a baseline of untrained objects, this protocol led to memory integration in behaviour and the brain: the trained objects became harder for participants to discriminate behaviourally in a categorical perception task and harder to discriminate neurally from patterns of fMRI activity in their hippocampus as a result of losing unique features. These findings demonstrate that neurofeedback can be used to alter and combine memories.This article is part of the theme issue 'Neurofeedback: new territories and neurocognitive mechanisms of endogenous neuromodulation'.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".