ArticleeLife2026
Challenges in replay detection by TDLM in post-encoding resting state.
Article in eLife, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Neural Representation of Episodic Time.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Review
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
Using temporally delayed linear modeling (TDLM) and magnetoencephalography (MEG), we investigated whether items associated with an underlying graph structure are replayed during a post-learning resting state. In these same data, we previously provided evidence for replay during online (non-rest) memory retrieval. Despite successful decoding of brain activity during a localizer task, and contrary to predictions, we found no evidence for replay during a post-learning resting state. To better understand this, we performed a hybrid simulation analysis in which we inserted synthetic replay events into a control resting state recorded prior to the actual experiment. This simulation revealed that replay detection using our current pipeline requires an extremely high replay density to reach significance (>1 replay sequence per second, with 'replay' defined as a sequence of reactivations within a certain time lag). Furthermore, when scaling the number of replay events with a behavioral measure, we were unable to induce a strong correlation between sequenceness and this measure. We infer that even if replay was present at plausible rates in our resting state dataset, we would lack statistical power to detect it with TDLM. Finally, contrasting our novel hybrid simulation to existing purely synthetic simulations indicated that the latter approaches overestimate the sensitivity of TDLM. We discuss approaches that might optimize the analytic methodology, including identifying boundary conditions under which TDLM can be expected to detect replay. We conclude that solving these methodological constraints will be crucial for optimizing the non-invasive measurement of human replay using MEG.
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.