ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2022
Model Sharing in the Human Medial Temporal Lobe.
Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The hippocampus as a generative model.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026Review
- Entorhinal Cortex Signals Dimensions of Past Experience That Can Be Generalized in a Novel Environment.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Effective planning involves knowing where different actions take us. However, natural environments are rich and complex, leading to an exponential increase in memory demand as a plan grows in depth. One potential solution is to filter out features of the environment irrelevant to the task at hand. This enables a shared model of transition dynamics to be used for planning over a range of different input features. Here, we asked human participants (13 male, 16 female) to perform a sequential decision-making task, designed so that knowledge should be integrated independently of the input features (visual cues) present in one case but not in another. Participants efficiently switched between using a low-dimensional (cue independent) and a high-dimensional (cue specific) representation of state transitions. fMRI data identified the medial temporal lobe as a locus for learning state transitions. Within this region, multivariate patterns of BOLD responses were less correlated between trials with differing input features but similar state associations in the high dimensional than in the low dimensional case, suggesting that these patterns switched between separable (specific to input features) and shared (invariant to input features) transition models. Finally, we show that transition models are updated more strongly following the receipt of positive compared with negative outcomes, a finding that challenges conventional theories of planning. Together, these findings propose a computational and neural account of how information relevant for planning can be shared and segmented in response to the vast array of contextual features we encounter in our world.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.