Trade-offs in posterior hippocampus versus medial prefrontal cortex mechanisms underlie memory precision in childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hippocampal subregions and medial prefrontal cortex may differentially shape memory precision in the mature brain: While anterior and posterior hippocampus may store the general themes and specific details of an episode, respectively, medial prefrontal cortex may instead connect related memories. However, given continued change to the functionality of these regions beyond childhood, it is unclear how children’s memory precision is influenced by these same mechanisms. We characterized how hippocampal subregions and medial prefrontal cortex separately and in tandem encourage memory precision in childhood versus adulthood. Children (7-9 years old) and adults studied scene photographs and then performed a recognition test that included both the studied scenes and highly similar lures. Behaviourally, adults had more precise memories than children in that they were better able to discriminate studied scenes from lures. At the neural level, anterior hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex were differently engaged during this memory formation: Anterior hippocampus engagement was related to subsequent memory across age groups, while children showed greater medial prefrontal cortex engagement than adults overall when studying scenes. Considering individual differences in engagement revealed further developmental differences. Children showed evidence for a trade-off in their reliance on posterior hippocampus versus medial prefrontal cortex during precise memory formation, suggesting competition between these regions. By contrast, the same structures in adults played a more cooperative role in supporting memory precision. These findings suggest that the relationship between posterior hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex reverses over development to yield adult-like memory precision, such that these regions work in opposition in childhood before becoming specialized to cooperatively encourage precision in adulthood.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".