Increasing visual short-term memory load impairs object processing in the left visual field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After lesions to temporo-parietal regions, patients with visuospatial neglect demonstrate a profound deficit in awareness for contents in the contralateral visual field. Likewise, individuals suffering form extinction demonstrate an impaired awareness for stimuli in one visual field under the presence of bilaterally presented stimuli. While neglect and extinction have traditionally been associated with impaired attentional processing, current models of neglect suggest that it is also associated with a profound deficit in visuo-spatial memory. Interestingly, recent experiments have demonstrated that increases in visual short-term memory (VSTM) load produce decreases in neural activity in the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ), the same region associated with neglect. These experiments also demonstrate that this decrease may be associated with inattentional blindness. Here, we tested whether increases in VSTM load could produce deficits in awareness for objects presented on the left visual field. Under a low or high VSTM load, participants had to indicate the number and identities of objects that were briefly presented to the left and/or right visual fields during the memory delay. Results demonstrate that under the high memory-load condition individuals were equally accurate in reporting the number of objects regardless of visual field, or whether objects were presented unilaterally or bilaterally. However, accuracy in reporting the objects' identities was impaired under bilateral presentation relative to unilateral conditions. Interestingly, we also demonstrate that this impairment in object processing was significantly worse in the left visual field compared to the right under high memory load. The results demonstrate that high VSTM load can produce an extinction-like deficit for the recognition of objects in the left visual field.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".