Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39955280›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Exploring replay.

Georgy Antonov, Peter Dayan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Georgy AntonovMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany. georgy.antonov@tuebingen.mpg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8887-6784
Peter DayanMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3476-1839

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Exploratory BehaviorHippocampusAlgorithmsAnimalsChoice BehaviorHumansLearningMaleModels, NeurologicalReinforcement, PsychologySpatial Navigation

Identifiers

PMID39955280
PMCPMC11829958

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.