Rapid Onset Relational Memory Effects Are Evident in Eye Movement Behavior, but Not in Hippocampal Amnesia
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
Little is known about the mechanisms by which memory for relations is accomplished, or about the time course of the critical processes. Here, eye movement measures were used to examine the time course of subjects' access to and use of relational memory. In four experiments, participants studied faces superimposed on scenic backgrounds and were tested with three-face displays superimposed on the scenes viewed earlier. Participants exhibited disproportionate viewing of the face originally studied with the scene, compared to other equally familiar faces in the test display. When a preview of a previously viewed scene was provided, permitting expectancies about the to-be-presented face to emerge, disproportionate viewing was manifested within 500-750 msec after test display onset, more than a full second in advance of explicit behavioral responses, and occurred even when overt responses were not required. In the absence of preview, the viewing effects were delayed by approximately 1 sec. Relational memory effects were absent in the eye movement behavior of amnesic patients with hippocampal damage, suggesting that these effects depend critically on the hippocampal system. The results provide an index of memory for face-scene relations, indicate the time by which retrieval and identification of these relations occur, and suggest that retrieval and use of relational memory depends critically on the hippocampus and occurs obligatorily, regardless of response requirements.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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