Visual short-term memory: Central capacity limitations in short-term consolidation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated whether there are central capacity limitations on consolidating information in visual short-term memory (VSTM). Subjects performed a visual memory task (deciding if two displays were the same or different) and a speeded tone pitch discrimination. When the tasks were performed concurrently, interference was observed in both tasks, suggesting that VSTM consolidation requires central resources. The cost of consolidating information in VSTM (as indexed by tone task performance) did not change as the number of to-be-consolidated items was increased, in contrast to previous work that used verbal materials (Jolicœur & Dell'Acqua, 1998 Jolicœur, P. and Dell'Acqua, R. 1998. The demonstration of short-term consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 36: 138–202. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Results from Experiments 2 and 3 suggest that this apparent difference reflected a contribution from verbal coding in previous studies. Experiments 1 and 4 provided evidence that the capacity limitations had a central locus and were not merely due to preparing for a secondary task.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it