ArticleNature communications2025
Exploring replay.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The compositionality continuum as a principle for studying the neural basis of intelligence.Nature neuroscience · 2026Review
- Human learning of probability distributions is biased toward moderate structural complexity.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Individual differences in tail risk sensitive exploration using Bayes-adaptive Markov decision processes.eLife · 2025Article
- Noradrenergic and Dopaminergic modulation of meta-cognition and meta-control.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animals face uncertainty about their environments due to initial ignorance or subsequent changes. They therefore need to explore. However, the algorithmic structure of exploratory choices in the brain still remains largely elusive. Artificial agents face the same problem, and a venerable idea in reinforcement learning is that they can plan appropriate exploratory choices offline, during the equivalent of quiet wakefulness or sleep. Although offline processing in humans and other animals, in the form of hippocampal replay and preplay, has recently been the subject of highly informative modelling, existing methods only apply to known environments. Thus, they cannot predict exploratory replay choices during learning and/or behaviour in the face of uncertainty. Here, we extend an influential theory of hippocampal replay and examine its potential role in approximately optimal exploration, deriving testable predictions for the patterns of exploratory replay choices in a paradigmatic spatial navigation task. Our modelling provides a normative interpretation of the available experimental data suggestive of exploratory replay. Furthermore, we highlight the importance of sequence replay, and license a range of new experimental paradigms that should further our understanding of offline processing.
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.