Lingering Options: How Choice Context Shapes Hippocampal Memory Representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There exists a dynamic interplay among the neural mechanisms that underlie decision-making and memory in the brain, with mounting evidence suggesting that the anterior hippocampus plays a role in how we represent past experiences as well as how we engage in choice behavior. A key question, then, is how the anterior hippocampus represents memories of our choices. Prior research has identified conceptual similarity between choice options as a critical factor influencing hippocampal involvement in decision-making. Building on this, we investigated how remembering chosen versus unchosen options from conceptually similar and dissimilar choice scenarios affects hippocampal memory representations. In a preregistered fMRI study, participants made a series of decisions between pairs of food options that were either conceptually similar or dissimilar and then completed an item recognition memory task for the previously presented options. Using representational similarity analysis, we examined hippocampal overlap during recognition among chosen and unchosen options from both similar and dissimilar choice trials. Our key finding was higher anterior but not posterior hippocampal similarity when remembering options from the conceptually similar compared with conceptually dissimilar trials, and further analysis showed that this was not explained simply by concept overlap. Complementary multivariate whole-brain analysis further revealed neural patterns of covariance that distinguished between memory for chosen/unchosen options across the similar and dissimilar trials. Taken together, these findings suggest that the way the brain-particularly the anterior hippocampus-stores and retrieves memories is profoundly impacted by the context in which deliberation occurs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".