Neither separate nor equivalent: Relationships between feature representations within bound objects
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
Evidence suggests that binding, or encoding a feature with respect to other features in time and space, can convey cognitive advantages. However, evidence across many kinds of stimuli and paradigms presents a mixed picture, alternatively showing cognitive costs or cognitive advantages associated with maintaining bound representations. We examined memory for colored letters drawn from similar and distinct color sets under circumstances that encouraged or discouraged the maintenance of color-letter binding. Our results confirmed previous change recognition research showing feature recognition improvement under explicit instructions to maintain binding. Color memory improved during binding, showing a reduced detrimental effect of feature similarity on retrieval, particularly when the letter served as the retrieval cue for a letter-color object. We found that feature recognition improved when two conditions were met: 1) relationships between features were to-be-remembered, and 2) the feature conjunction was relevant at test. Our results further suggest that this feature advantage arises because the encoded relationship between the features facilitates retrieval, not because features and objects are represented simultaneously in separate buffers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
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