Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36719914›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023

Distinct replay signatures for prospective decision-making and memory preservation.

G Elliott Wimmer, Yunzhe Liu, Daniel C McNamee, Raymond J Dolan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Revisiting the role of computational neuroimaging in the era of integrative neuroscience.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Distinct replay signatures for prospective decision-making and memory preservation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

G Elliott WimmerMax Planck University College London Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, University College London, London WC1B 5EH, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2227-119X
Yunzhe LiuState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0836-9403
Daniel C McNameeMax Planck University College London Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, University College London, London WC1B 5EH, UK.
Raymond J DolanMax Planck University College London Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, University College London, London WC1B 5EH, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9356-761X

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V032429/1Wellcome Trust 098362/Z/12/ZWellcome Trust 110257/Z/15/ZWellcome Trust 203147/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theories of neural replay propose that it supports a range of functions, most prominently planning and memory consolidation. Here, we test the hypothesis that distinct signatures of replay in the same task are related to model-based decision-making ("planning") and memory preservation. We designed a reward learning task wherein participants utilized structure knowledge for model-based evaluation, while at the same time had to maintain knowledge of two independent and randomly alternating task environments. Using magnetoencephalography and multivariate analysis, we first identified temporally compressed sequential reactivation, or replay, both prior to choice and following reward feedback. Before choice, prospective replay strength was enhanced for the current task-relevant environment when a model-based planning strategy was beneficial. Following reward receipt, and consistent with a memory preservation role, replay for the alternative distal task environment was enhanced as a function of decreasing recency of experience with that environment. Critically, these planning and memory preservation relationships were selective to pre-choice and post-feedback periods, respectively. Our results provide support for key theoretical proposals regarding the functional role of replay and demonstrate that the relative strength of planning and memory-related signals are modulated by ongoing computational and task demands.

Indexed as

HippocampusMemory ConsolidationHumansRewarddecision-makinghippocampusmemoryplanningreplay

Identifiers

PMID36719914
PMCPMC9963918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.