MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405782311 · doi:10.1101/2024.12.25.630328

Long-Term Reactivation of Multiple Sub-Assemblies in the Hippocampus and Prefrontal Cortex

2024· preprint· en· W4405782311 on OpenAlexaff
Masami Tatsuno, Jean‐Marc Fellous

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrefrontal cortexHippocampusTerm (time)NeurosciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyPhysicsCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In resting or sleep periods following a task, neurons in various parts of the brain become reactivated, with firing patterns often similar to that during the task. This reactivation plays an essential role in memory consolidation. However, detecting these reactivating episodes has been challenging because not all neurons recorded may be directly relevant to the memory being consolidated. Here, we propose a novel spike train clustering (STC) method for detecting groups of neurons (clusters) with partial synchronous firing. From a mechanistic standpoint, the correlated activity of an ensemble can arise from neuronal interactions within the recorded local ensemble, common external inputs, or both. To quantify these contributions, we propose to use information geometry (IG) by taking advantage of its capacity for orthogonal decomposition of neural interactions. We analyzed simultaneous single unit activity from rat medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and area CA1 of the hippocampus when animals explored novel objects and when they slept before and after the exploration. We demonstrate that multiple reactivations by different subsets of neurons (clusters) occurred. Those reactivations could extend over 11 hours, the entire recording duration of post-task rest after the exploration epoch. Long-lasting reactivation was not detected when all neurons were included as a single cluster in the analysis. We also showed that pairwise interactions in reactivating clusters tended to be more strongly modified than in non-reactivating ones. In addition, the pairwise interactions of the reactivating clusters in CA1 were strongly modulated by the task experience but not in the mPFC. These results indicate that hippocampal reactivation following novel experience is likely to be induced within the hippocampal circuits. In contrast, mPFC reactivation is likely to be driven by external inputs, possibly in part from the hippocampus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicMemory and Neural Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→