MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Visual Memory Decay Is Deterministic

2005· article· en· W2038489886 on OpenAlexaff
Jason M. Gold, Richard Murray, Allison B. Sekuler, Patrick Bennett, Robert Sekuler

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsForgettingPsychologyVisual maskingCognitive psychologyVisual short-term memoryVisual memoryObject (grammar)Iconic memoryBackward maskingMemory errorsVisual perceptionCognitive scienceCommunicationArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePerceptionNeuroscienceCognitionRecall

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After observers see an object or pattern, their visual memory of what they have seen decays slowly over time. Nearly all current theories of vision assume that decay of short-term memory occurs because visual representations are progressively and randomly corrupted as time passes. We tested this assumption using psychophysical noise-masking methods, and we found that visual memory decays in a completely deterministic fashion. This surprising finding challenges current ideas about visual memory and sets a goal for future memory research: to characterize the deterministic "forgetting function" that describes how memories decay over time.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological ScienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207