Direct Evidence for the Role of Inhibition in Resolving Interference in 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
Interference from competing material at retrieval is a major cause of memory failure. We tested the hypothesis that such interference can be overcome by suppressing competing responses. In a three-phase task, participants in the critical interference condition first performed a vowel-counting task (Phase 1) that included pairs of orthographically similar words (e.g., allergy and analogy). After a delay, participants were asked to solve word fragments (e.g., a _ l _ _ gy) that resembled both words in a pair they had seen, but could be completed only by one of these words (Phase 2). We then measured the consequence of having successfully resolved interference in Phase 2 by asking participants to read a list of words, including rejected competitor words (i.e., the word in each pair that could not be used to solve the word fragments), as quickly as possible (Phase 3). Participants in the interference condition were slower to name the competitor words than participants in conditions that did not require interference resolution. These results constitute direct evidence for the role of active suppression in resolving interference during memory retrieval.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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