Differentiation of Related Events in Hippocampus Supports Memory Reinstatement in Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults are capable of either differentiating or integrating similar events in memory based on which representations are optimal for a given situation. Yet how children represent related memories remains unknown. Here, children (7-10 years old) and adults formed memories for separate yet overlapping events. We then measured how successfully remembered events were represented and reinstated using fMRI. We found that children formed differentiated representations in the hippocampus-such that related events were stored as less similar to one another compared with unrelated events. Conversely, adults formed integrated representations, wherein related events were stored as more similar, including in medial prefrontal cortex. Furthermore, hippocampal differentiation among children and medial prefrontal cortex integration among adults tracked neocortical reinstatement of the specific features associated with the individual events. Together, these findings reveal that the same memory behaviors are supported by different underlying representations across development. Specifically, whereas differentiation underlies memory organization and retrieval in childhood, integration exhibits a protracted developmental trajectory.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".