Divided attention and memory: Evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding.
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
In 5 divided attention (DA) experiments, students (24 in each experiment) performed visual distracting tasks (e.g., recognition of words, word and digit monitoring) while either simultaneously encoding an auditory word list or engaging in oral free recall of the target word list. DA during retrieval, using either of the word-based distracting tasks, produced relatively larger interference effects than the digit-monitoring task. DA during encoding produced uniformly large interference effects, regardless of the type of distracting task. Results suggest that when attention is divided at retrieval, interference is created only when the memory and concurrent task compete for access to word-specific representational systems; no such specificity is necessary to create interference at encoding. During encoding, memory and concurrent tasks compete primarily for general resources, whereas during retrieval, they compete primarily for representational systems.
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