Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38496674›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025

Prioritizing replay when future goals are unknown.

Yotam Sagiv, Thomas Akam, Ilana B Witten, Nathaniel D Daw

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yotam SagivPrinceton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-6469-3334
Thomas AkamDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1810-0494
Ilana B WittenPrinceton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0548-2160
Nathaniel D DawPrinceton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5029-1430

Funding

Differentiating reward seeking and loss avoidance with reference-dependent learning modelsR01MH121093 · NIMH · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI DAW, NATHANIEL DOUGLASS, SHOHAMY, DAPHNA · 2019 to 2022
$2.1M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH121093
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although hippocampal place cells replay nonlocal trajectories, the computational function of these events remains controversial. One hypothesis, formalized in a prominent reinforcement learning account, holds that replay plans routes to current goals. However, recent puzzling data appear to contradict this perspective by showing that replayed destinations lag current goals. These results may support an alternative hypothesis that replay updates route information to build a "cognitive map." Yet no similar theory exists to formalize this view, it is unclear how such a map is represented or what role replay plays in computing it. We address these gaps by introducing a theory of replay that learns a map of routes to candidate goals, before reward is available or when its location may change. Replay is then focused on current goals (as with planning) and/or potential future goals (like a map), depending on the animal's expectations about future goal switching. Our work thus generalizes the planning account to capture a general map-building function for replay, reconciling it with data, and revealing an unexpected relationship between the seemingly distinct hypotheses. The theory offers a unifying explanation why data from tasks with different goal dynamics have seemingly supported different hypotheses for the function of replay, and suggests new predictions for experiments testing these effects.

Indexed as

geodesic representationHippocampal replayreinforcement learning

Identifiers

PMID38496674
PMCPMC10942393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.