Memory Networks Supporting Retrieval Effort and Retrieval Success Under Conditions of Full and Divided Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a multivariate analysis technique, partial least squares (PLS), to identify distributed patterns of brain activity associated with retrieval effort and retrieval success. Participants performed a recognition memory task under full attention (FA) or two different divided attention (DA) conditions during retrieval. Behaviorally, recognition was disrupted when a word, but not digit-based distracting task, was performed concurrently with retrieval. PLS was used to identify patterns of brain activation that together covaried with the three memory conditions and which were functionally connected with activity in the right hippocampus to produce successful memory performance. Results indicate that activity in the right dorsolateral frontal cortex increases during conditions of DA at retrieval, and that successful memory performance in the DA-digit condition is associated with activation of the same network of brain regions functionally connected to the right hippocampus, as under FA, which increases with increasing memory performance. Finally, DA conditions that disrupt successful memory performance (DA-word) interfere with recruitment of both retrieval-effort and retrieval-success networks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".