A neural substrate in the human hippocampus for linking successive events

Paz, Gelbard-Sagiv, Mukamel, Harel, Malach, Fried · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2010 · neuroscience · 10.1073/pnas.0910834107 · record Paz2010-a-neural-substrate-in-the-human-hippocampus
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (html); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim type is 'existence' because the paper's shape is the demonstration that a hippocampus-specific neuronal correlate of temporal binding exists and tracks behaviour; the discussion offers a mechanistic interpretation (memories as network states) but does not test it. Only one claim_relation is recorded: the article cites almost entirely by bare reference number, and rule 7 forbids inferring relations from bare citations, so the sentences relating the work to refs 29, 10 and 35 were left out; Hebb is named in running text, so that one qualifies. No statement in the paper reports anyone testing or repeating these findings, hence replication status untested. 2026-08-13 and 2026-08-15 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

7 quotations on this page contain a reference number where the paper printed a superscript. This journal style prints citations as raised numerals — parameters^12,13 — and the extraction flattened them into the line, so the sentence reads parameters 12 , 13 . The digits are citation markers and not part of what the author wrote. The quotes keep them for the same reason they keep every other extraction fault: a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
episodic memory 3 fields · linear regression 2 fields · Pearson correlation coefficient 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 13 concept tags on this paper, none is grounded in a quoted sentence. All carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

temporal relationships mutual information conditional entropy marginal entropy hippocampus entorhinal cortex amygdala anterior cingulate free recall free-viewing cell assemblies context-independent pure-stimulus Because the hippocampus alone integrates successive events together with the context in which they occurred, it can build context-specific branching representations, which is why the developing temporal linkage appears there and not in amygdala or cingulate cortex Memory formation is the internal convergence of one network state onto the network state representing the stimulus that followed it in time, so that each state comes to lead reliably to the next episodic memory temporal binding single units epilepsy clip repetition Hebb shuffling linear regression pure-stimulus relationships context-independent correlations responsive neurons brain structure memory performance number of spikes mutual information (MI) correlation Pearson correlation coefficient regression t-test t tests multiple-comparison correction Bonferron-corrected chi-squared ANOVA two-way ANOVA Fisher's exact test Fisher's combined probability test Fisher's combined test permutation (shuffle) test we shuffled the time windows within each clip Mann-Whitney U test Mann–Whitney nonparametric test bias correction of an estimator analytical bias correction mutual information between successive time windows shuffling across repetitions marginal and conditional entropy decomposition electrophysiology

Legend

second reading	`alternatives`	an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees
relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
contribution	`contribution`	what the paper claims to add
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
object of study	`object_of_study`	what the paper is about — the thing it investigates
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
research question	`research_question`	the question the paper sets itself
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it
transfer	`transfers`	a method or concept carried in from another field

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910834107. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

alternatives 2 · claim_relations 5 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 5 · content_tags 54 · contribution 1 · controls 1 · limitations 7 · mechanisms 7 · method 1 · object_of_study 1 · phenomenon 1 · research_question 1 · senses 4 · transfers 2

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 5 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
object_of_study	how single human neurons come to signal the temporal relationship between successive events Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`object_of_study`		the paper's words
research_question	how neuronal activity patterns evolve as memory for the temporal order of events is formed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`research_question`		the paper's words
contribution	shows hippocampal activity in successive time segments becomes mutually predictive across repetitions, specifically in hippocampus, and that this predicts each subject's later free recall Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`contribution`		the paper's words
claim_type	existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	memory for the temporal order of events Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	electrophysiology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electrophysiology	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Because the hippocampus alone integrates successive events together with the context in which they occurred, it can build context-specific branching representations, which is why the developing temporal linkage appears there and not in amygdala or cingulate cortex	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Memory formation is the internal convergence of one network state onto the network state representing the stimulus that followed it in time, so that each state comes to lead reliably to the next	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mutual information between successive time bins measures how much knowing activity now reduces uncertainty about activity next, which linear correlation cannot capture Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	the analysis deliberately avoids assuming a constant representation, looking at a neuron's relation to itself over time rather than to the stimulus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	the increase comes from reduced conditional entropy rather than raised marginal entropy, so it is the relationship changing and not the firing statistics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	the hippocampus is proposed to be the site because it alone can integrate successive events with the context in which they occurred, allowing branching representations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[5]`	0.9	the tagger's words
mechanisms	memories are framed as stable network states, with formation meaning one state leads more reliably to the next Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[6]`	0.95	the tagger's words
limitations	Alternative accounts in terms of growing visual familiarity or improved retrieval cannot be ruled out completely. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the learning interpretation: WE CANNOT RULE OUT THESE POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTIONS COMPLETELY - growing visual familiarity and improving retrieval both remain available	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Assemblies larger than three neurons could not be analysed with the data the paradigm yielded. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the assembly analysis: NEURAL ASSEMBLIES OF n > 3 REQUIRE MUCH LARGER AMOUNTS OF DATA AND COULD NOT BE MEASURED IN THE CURRENT PARADIGM	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	two alternative interpretations - growing familiarity and improving retrieval - cannot be completely ruled out, and the authors say so Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[0] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - the two alternative accounts are argued against, not excluded	`limitations[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the familiarity account is argued against by an external finding rather than by a control in this dataset Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the familiarity rebuttal specifically, whose evidence is external: IT WAS SHOWN RECENTLY THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SPIKES ELICITED IN A HIPPOCAMPAL [response does not grow with familiarity] - a result from another paper, not a control here	`limitations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the retrieval account would also fit the recall correlation, which the authors acknowledge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the correlation with subsequent memory: THIS INTERPRETATION ALSO WOULD FIT WITH THE REMARKABLE CORRELATION WE FOUND BETWEEN THE NEURONAL MEASURE AND THE SUBSEQUENT INDIVIDUAL MEMORY, so the headline result does not discriminate between the accounts	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the data come from the same experiments already reported for a different finding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any count of independent studies: Quotation withheld	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	subjects are epilepsy patients implanted on purely clinical criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the population and the recording sites: SINGLE AND MULTIUNITS WERE RECORDED (27 SESSIONS IN 13 INDIVIDUALS) in epilepsy patients whose implants follow clinical need	`limitations[6]`	0.8	the tagger's words
transfers	mutual information and its decomposition into marginal and conditional entropy, used both as the measure and as the control on it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
transfers	the paradigms requiring memory for temporal order, against which this free-viewing design is explicitly contrasted Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
controls	the clips re-shuffled so that the six viewings came from ENTIRELY DIFFERENT movie clips while staying within the same repetition number Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the experimental context - the room - and the mere passage of time as the source of the temporal relationships, both of which advance identically whichever clip is shown · outcome: held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	temporal relationships is defined operationally as mutual information between spike counts in successive time windows, expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	two rival sources of the same correlation are named and separately estimated: context-independent drift, measured in blank periods, and pure-stimulus structure, measured by shuffling across repetitions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the free-viewing paradigm is defended as closer to real memory formation than animal paradigms, because it uses no reinforcement and needs no overtraining Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	memory formation is recast as a change in which network state reliably follows which, rather than as a change in what a neuron represents Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
alternatives	method: single-unit recording in epilepsy patients freely viewing repeated audiovisual clips, with mutual information between successive time windows as the measure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: electrophysiology — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.method`		the tagger's words
alternatives	phenomenon: temporal binding during episodic memory formation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: memory for the temporal order of events — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.phenomenon`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Hebb's original proposal (ref. 33) that neuronal assemblies can be linked temporally Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → the same group's report of hippocampal reactivation during free recall, from the same experiments - a paper independently tagged in this corpus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	supports → Hebb's proposal that neuronal assemblies can be linked temporally Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	supports → fMRI evidence that hippocampal activation tracks retrieval of temporal order in naturalistic scenes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: the paper's own words: we cannot rule out	`claim_relations[3]`	0.85	the tagger's words
claim_relations	qualifies → the interpretation that the effect is growing visual familiarity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	temporal relationships —operationalised-as→ mutual information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'the relationship between subsequent activities', not 'temporal relationships'. also in: temporal relationships · mutual information	`concept_edges[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	temporal relationships —causes→ free recall Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.7 · note: the paper says related directly to rather than causes; r = 0.87 across subjects. the weight carries the correlational status Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but temporal relationships are 'RELATED DIRECTLY TO' memory performance across subjects; causes overstates an association. also in: temporal relationships · free recall	`concept_edges[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	hippocampus —distinct-from→ amygdala Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: regional specificity is itself the control: an effect present only in hippocampus cannot be general arousal Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span reports a gradual increase in the hippocampus but not other structures; distinct-from is loose. also in: hippocampus · amygdala	`concept_edges[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	temporal relationships —distinct-from→ context-independent Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: estimated separately in blank periods and subtracted, rather than assumed absent also in: temporal relationships · context-independent	`concept_edges[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	temporal relationships —distinct-from→ pure-stimulus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: estimated by shuffling across repetitions of the same clip Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span describes stimulus correlations to be controlled; distinct-from is loose. also in: temporal relationships · pure-stimulus	`concept_edges[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	mutual information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mutual information	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regression	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	multiple-comparison correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multiple-comparison correction	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	chi-squared Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-squared	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Fisher's exact test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Fisher's exact test	`content_tags.statistics[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Fisher's combined probability test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Fisher's combined probability test	`content_tags.statistics[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	permutation (shuffle) test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: permutation (shuffle) test	`content_tags.statistics[9]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Mann-Whitney U test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Mann-Whitney U test	`content_tags.statistics[10]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	bias correction of an estimator Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bias correction of an estimator	`content_tags.statistics[11]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	mutual information between successive time windows Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mutual information between successive time windows	`content_tags.statistics[12]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	shuffling across repetitions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: shuffling across repetitions	`content_tags.statistics[13]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	Fisher's combined test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Fisher's combined test	`content_tags.statistics[14]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	marginal and conditional entropy decomposition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: marginal and conditional entropy decomposition	`content_tags.statistics[15]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	With repeated viewing, activity in successive time segments became gradually correlated, so activity in one window came to predict the activity that followed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	This linkage appeared after only two or three viewings of an episode and was stronger than both context-independent and stimulus-driven correlations. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The gradual growth of temporal relationships across clip repetitions occurred in the hippocampus only, not in amygdala, anterior cingulate or entorhinal cortex at the single-cell level. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The strength of hippocampal temporal relationships during viewing predicted how many clips a subject later recalled freely, with a correlation of 0.87 across subjects. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The effect was not an artifact of changing firing rates, because mean firing rate was stable across both clip repetition and clip duration. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Decomposing mutual information showed the rise came from falling conditional entropy (better prediction of the next window) rather than from rising marginal entropy (changed firing statistics). Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	When simultaneously recorded pairs and triplets of cells were analysed, a significant increase in temporal relationships appeared in entorhinal cortex as well. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Just over half of all recorded neurons (362 of 671) showed a significant increase in temporal relationships for at least one clip. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	activity in successive time windows became mutually predictive across clip repetitions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	the effect emerged within two to three presentations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	the gradual increase appeared in hippocampus and not in amygdala, entorhinal cortex or anterior cingulate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	only in hippocampus did the effect exceed both rival sources of correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	the measure correlated with each subject's later free recall at r = 0.87, and in no other structure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[12]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	the same result held with ordinary Pearson correlation instead of mutual information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[13]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	the rise in mutual information came from falling conditional entropy, not from changing firing statistics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[14]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	overall firing rate was stable across repetitions and along clip duration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[15]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	no evidence of developing slow oscillations that could mimic the effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[16]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	temporal relationships Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: temporal relationships	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	pure-stimulus relationships Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pure-stimulus relationships	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	context-independent correlations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: context-independent correlations	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	responsive neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: responsive neurons	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	temporal relationships Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: temporal relationships	`content_tags.definitions[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	brain structure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: brain structure	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	mutual information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mutual information	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	memory performance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: memory performance	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	number of spikes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: number of spikes	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	r = 0.87, P < 0.01 — across-subject correlation between hippocampal temporal relationships and free-recall success Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	54% (362/671) — proportion of all recorded neurons showing significant temporal relationships for at least one clip Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	52% (349/671) — proportion of recorded units classified as single units rather than multiunits Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	AH, n = 180; amygdala n = 160; EC n = 224; AC n = 107 — number of units recorded in each brain structure across 27 sessions in 13 patients Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	AH, 49%; EC, 34%; amygdala, 23%; AC, 25% — proportion of neurons per structure whose temporal relationships exceeded the pure-stimulus baseline Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	22% — proportion of neurons whose during-clip temporal relationships exceeded their context-independent (blank-period) relationships Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	250 ms — width of the time window into which spikes were binned for the main analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	n = 4,884 pairs and n = 2,1061 triplets — number of simultaneously recorded cell pairs and triplets analysed for assembly-level temporal relationships Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	671 units in 27 sessions from 13 individuals; hippocampus 180, amygdala 160, entorhinal 224, anterior cingulate 107 — the recorded sample Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	r = 0.87, P < 0.01 — correlation between the hippocampal measure and individual recall Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	10 to 16 clips of 5 to 10 s, each repeated six times — the viewing design Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	within two to three presentations — how fast the effect emerged Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.