Distinct contributions of hippocampal pathways in learning regularities and exceptions revealed by functional footprints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fundamental aspects of learning are theorized to be supported by hippocampal pathways: monosynaptic pathway (MSP) extracts regularities whereas trisynaptic pathway (TSP) rapidly encodes exceptional items. Yet, the empirical evidence for the dynamic involvement of MSP and TSP in learning remains elusive. We leveraged diffusion-weighted imaging to estimate the end points of MSP- and TSP-related white matter structures (i.e., footprints) within hippocampal subfields and entorhinal cortex. We then measured the activation of pathway-specific footprints with functional magnetic resonance imaging while participants learned novel concepts defined by regularities and exceptions. The functional footprint method revealed links between MSP-related footprint activation and regularity encoding early in learning, and TSP-related footprint activation and exception encoding late in learning. These findings provide novel evidence that learning concept regularities and exceptions is distinctly supported by hippocampal pathways. Pathway footprint approach provides insights into the functional dynamics of the human hippocampus, translating theoretical and computational work into empirically testable questions in humans. Significance Statement Theories suggest that learning involves two main functions of the hippocampus: integrating commonly encountered information and distinctly encoding exceptional items. Yet, the theorized contributions of hippocampal pathways are yet to be empirically validated. We provide the first evidence of this in humans by introducing a multimodal technique (pathway footprints) that targets learning-related activations at the endpoints of hippocampal pathways. The more a pathway is engaged for a given learning experience, the more the pathway endpoints will be activated. This innovation reveals the dynamic involvement of hippocampal pathways in learning: one unites common information early in learning while another encodes exceptional items late in learning. The pathway footprint method offers precise estimates of neural signatures of cognition as refined by anatomy.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".