Cookies on Paperstars

We use Google Analytics to understand how people use Paperstars and improve the site. Are you okay with that?

Human hippocampal ripples coordinate planning sequences and compositional representations in neocortex

He L. Wang X. Zhang J. Xiao Z. Hu X. Schwartenbeck P. Bakermans J. Behrens T. Liu Y (2026). Human hippocampal ripples coordinate planning sequences and compositional representations in neocortex. Nature Neuroscience, 29(7), 1711-1721. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-026-02291-3

Overall rating
(4.0) 1 review
Authors
Li He, Xiongfei Wang, Jinbo Zhang, Zhibing Xiao, Xiangyu Hu, Philipp Schwartenbeck, Jacob Bakermans, Tim Behrens, Yunzhe Liu
Journal
Nature Neuroscience
First published
2026
Number of citations
1
Type
Journal Article

Embed Review

Share a live Paperstars badge for Human hippocampal ripples coordinate planning sequences and compositional representations in neocortex. Copy the HTML below and paste it into your site.

Paperstars badge preview

Reviews

Informative Title

100%
Appropriate
Slightly Misleading
Exaggerated

Methods

100%
Sound
Questionable
Inadequate

Statistical Analysis

100%
Appropriate
Some Issues
Major concerns

Data Presentation

100%
Complete and Transparent
Minor Omissions
Misrepresented

Discussion

100%
Appropriate
Slightly Misleading
Exaggerated

Limitations

100%
Appropriately acknowledged
Minor Omissions
Inadequate

Data Available

100%
Completely Available
Partial data available
Not Open Access

Sign in to add a review. Help the research community by sharing your assessment of this journal-article.

OliveMembrane Jul 15, 2026

The paper presents valuable data on ripples and replay of neural sequences in humans during compositional reasoning. However, most of the statistics used mixed-effects models without random slopes leading to overestimation of effects and their statistical significance (i.e., some of the p-values are suspiciously small for a sample of 28 participants). Moreover, the core temporal delay modelling to assess sequenceness was only done in 5 participants because decoding didn't work for the other subjects. This undermines the strength of the central claim.