Complexity and similarity in visual memory
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
Retaining information in an active and accessible state over the short-term is critical for any cognitive activity. It has been estimated that immediate visual memory (also known as short-term memory or working memory) can maintain only about four objects simultaneously. However, the basic determinants of this capacity limit remain a matter of debate. For example, whether capacity is reduced as object complexity increases is yet unresolved. On the other hand, many researchers agree that in change detection tasks – which are widely used to investigate capacity limits of immediate memory – similarity between the memory and the test items (memory-test similarity) negatively affects change detection performance. In contrast, similarity between memory items (memory-array similarity) has been shown recently to benefit performance, at least for simple objects. In the present study, similarity continua were used to manipulate memory-test and memory-array similarity for both simple and complex objects, in order to thoroughly examine the impact of complexity and memory-array similarity on the retention of information in memory. Results show that the number of memory representations is fixed across object complexity, but that their resolution (or precision) decreases as complexity increases. In contrast, memory-array similarity increases mnemonic resolution, an increase that even compensates for the deleterious effect of complexity.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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