ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Competition and cooperation of assembly sequences in recurrent neural networks.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Conditions for replay of neuronal assemblies.PLoS computational biology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neural activity sequences are ubiquitous in the brain and play pivotal roles in functions such as long-term memory formation and motor control. While conditions for storing and reactivating individual sequences have been thoroughly characterized, it remains unclear how multiple sequences may interact when activated simultaneously in recurrent neural networks. This question is especially relevant for weak sequences, comprised of fewer neurons, competing against strong sequences. Using a non-linear rate -based and a spiking model with discrete, pre-configured assemblies, we demonstrate that weak sequences can compensate for their competitive disadvantage either by increasing excitatory connections between subsequent assemblies or by cooperating with other co-active sequences. Further, our models suggest that such cooperation can negatively affect sequence speed unless subsequently active assemblies are paired. Our analysis characterizes the conditions for successful sequence progression in isolated, competing, and cooperating assembly sequences, and identifies the distinct contributions of recurrent and feed-forward projections. This proof-of-principle study shows how even disadvantaged sequences can be prioritized for reactivation, a process which has recently been implicated in hippocampal memory 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.