Cited by 733Memory and Neural MechanismsSleep and Wakefulness ResearchMemory Processes and Influences

Hippocampal replay is not a simple function of experience

Open access
Gupta, Anoopum S., van der Meer, Matthijs A.A., Touretzky, David S., Redish, A. David·2010·Neuron

Abstract

Replay of behavioral sequences in the hippocampus during sharp wave ripple complexes (SWRs) provides a potential mechanism for memory consolidation and the learning of knowledge structures. Current hypotheses imply that replay should straightforwardly reflect recent experience. However, we find these hypotheses to be incompatible with the content of replay on a task with two distinct behavioral sequences (A and B). We observed forward and backward replay of B even when rats had been performing A for >10 min. Furthermore, replay of nonlocal sequence B occurred more often when B was infrequently experienced. Neither forward nor backward sequences preferentially represented highly experienced trajectories within a session. Additionally, we observed the construction of never-experienced novel-path sequences. These observations challenge the idea that sequence activation during SWRs is a simple replay of recent experience. Instead, replay reflected all physically available trajectories within the environment, suggesting a potential role in active learning and maintenance of the cognitive map.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.01.034

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The OBH can account for many statistical 'replay' results since those neurons that saw synaptic changes in response learning are most affected by the regularization of dreaming, and since exact sequence replication is rare and most 'replay' is actually never-before-seen firing patterns.

    “In this way the OBH can account for many of the statistical “replay” results since those neurons that saw synaptic changes in response learning are most affected by the regularization of dreaming, and since exact sequence replication is rare and most “replay” is actually never-before-seen firing patterns.69”

    From The overfitted brain: Dreams evolved to assist generalization (2021) · cites this paper as [69]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Replay results more often contain never-before-seen patterns of activity than actual replays of waking sequences.

    “the OBH fits with the fact that “replay” results more often contain never-before-seen patterns of activity than actual replays of waking sequences,69”

    From The overfitted brain: Dreams evolved to assist generalization (2021) · cites this paper as [69]

    The Discussion says never-experienced sequences occurred but were rare, contrary to the claim that they occur more often than replays of experienced sequences. The Results section on never-experienced shortcut sequences reports 19 shortcut sequences; the Results section on forward and backward replay reports 1,719 replays overall. The paper does not support the claimed frequency comparison. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Well-controlled neuroimaging experiments show little evidence for exact sequence replication and strong evidence for mostly never-before-seen firing patterns.

    “Furthermore, the hypothesis must grapple with the fact that well-controlled neuroimaging experiments show little evidence for exact sequence replication and strong evidence for mostly never-before-seen firing patterns.69”

    From The overfitted brain: Dreams evolved to assist generalization (2021) · cites this paper as [69]

    The Results ('Never-experienced shortcut sequences'; page unavailable) provide strong evidence for novel replay trajectories, and the Results ('Comparison of data with current proposed mechanisms') find that replay does not simply reflect recent experience. But the Discussion explicitly calls the novel sequences rare, not 'mostly' never-before-seen. The Experimental Procedures describe analysis of rat place-cell spikes rather than neuroimaging experiments. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a task requiring the rat to run back and forth on the same elevated linear track, replay in the reverse order occurred mainly at the end of a run, whereas replay in a forward direction transpired in the anticipatory period before a new run.

    “In a task requiring the rat to run back and forth on the same elevated linear track, replay in the reverse order occurred mainly at the end of a run, whereas replay in a forward direction transpired in the anticipatory period before a new run (288, 492).”

    From About Sleep's Role in Memory (2013) · cites this paper as [492]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Squire LR Memory and Brain 1987 Oxford University Press New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gupta, A. S., van der Meer, M. A. A., Touretzky, D. S., & Redish, A. D.
Affiliations
  • Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
  • Gupta, Anoopum S.
  • Redish, A. David
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-03
Volume
65
Issue
5
Pages
695-705
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001257668
Cited by
733
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 31
FWCI
20.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (IGERT DGE-0549352)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 MH-080381)
  • Pennsylvania Department of Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
hippocampal replay, sharp-wave ripples, memory consolidation, cognitive maps, active learning
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Decision Making, Hippocampus, Male, Memory, Models, Neurological, Neurons, Spatial Behavior, Maze Learning, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review